Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

It used to be de rigueur for the prime minister and opposition leader to turn up to the National Press Club in the final week of the election campaign. But now Liberal leaders are not so keen.

Scott Morrison gave it a miss in 2022, although he was there in 2019. Nobody expected Peter Dutton, who has often been reluctant to face the Canberra press gallery in the past three years, to front the club this week.

It’s also happened in the past that a leader has said something significantly newsworthy during the Q&A session on these final big occasions.

Bob Hawke, days away from becoming prime minister in 1983, flagged he would be willing to break election promises if he found, on reaching office, that fiscal circumstances were different from what was anticipated. They were, and he did.

Anthony Albanese on Wednesday made his appearance, but he was not going to grab a headline with anything unexpected.

He delivered a spirited stump speech concentrating on everything Labor is offering voters – improvements to Medicare, tax cuts all round, and much else. He played and replayed his familiar mantra about nobody being left behind or held back. When it came to questions, the prime minister defended and deflected.

Are Australians better off than before he was elected? Well, they’d be worse off if Dutton had had his way.

Will whoever is in government need to increase the tax base in the next decade? “We’ll have not one but two income tax cuts.”

Would he consider a compromise on Labor’s plan to tax unrealised capital gains on some superannuation balances? “We have our policy.”

Is there something he regrets from the last three years? “I don’t pretend to be perfect.” So no regrets? “I’m not saying that at all.”

What he is saying is that the final sprint of the campaign is not the time to enter the confessional.

With the polls, and even most Liberals, at least privately, expecting Albanese to still be PM next week, whether in minority or majority government, he knows he has two challenges in these last days: to avoid being caught on any sticky paper, and to continue to project a sense of momentum by going full tilt (Labor people remember Bill Shorten easing up just before polling day in 2019). He is visiting every state, before he votes in his home electorate of Grayndler where, he indicated, his talisman dog Toto will accompany him to the polling booth on Saturday.

Before his press club appearance, Albanese had encouraging news from the latest consumer price index quarterly figures, which showed underlying inflation falling to 2.9%. This points to another cut in interest rates.

Westpac said, “Inflationary pressures have moderated, and the door is open for a rate cut in May”.

The Reserve Bank doesn’t meet until May 19-20, but the prospect of a cut can be a mood lifter for stretched households – just as the pre-campaign February decrease was.

Also able to be cast positively, US President Donald Trump, who has proved elusive in the face of the government’s attempts to get him to pick up the phone to discuss a tariff deal, confirmed a call would come. Asked whether he would speak to Albanese about trade, the president said, “they are calling, and I will talk to him, yes.”

There is no detail of whether, or what, deal could be in the offing, but Trump, by signalling the call, has given (inadvertently) another bit of help to the government in an election in which the “Trump factor” has played all Albanese’s way.

Instead of the press club, Dutton had done an hour’s “Ask Me Anything” appearance on Tuesday with Paul Murray on Sky, taking around a dozen viewers’ questions. It was an easy, friendly gig, directed squarely at his base. That might be one thing if he’s seeking the preferences of those voting One Nation or Trumpet of Patriots, but it is not where the middle-ground swinging voters are.

In this last week, Dutton has put his anger at a section of the media on display. Earlier in the week he lashed out at the ABC, Guardian and “other hate media”.

On Wednesday he doubled down, in a bit of pointed but embittered humour on FM radio when quizzed on tips for a good election night party. “I think alcohol is the first essential ingredient, I’m sure of that. Responsible drinking as well, but not watching the ABC would be a good start. For any young ones listening at home, forget the ABC.”

Dutton’s disdain for the ABC is long-standing and well-known. But in an election campaign, why he thinks it is a good tactic to expose it so blatantly is a mystery. It shows questionable judgement and a lack of discipline.

Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Election Diary: post-election rate cut and phone call from Trump in the pipeline – https://theconversation.com/election-diary-post-election-rate-cut-and-phone-call-from-trump-in-the-pipeline-255615

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ang Li, ARC DECRA and Senior Research Fellow, NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence in Healthy Housing, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne

Across Australia, communities are grappling with climate disasters that are striking more frequently and with greater intensity. Bushfires, floods and cyclones are no longer one-off events. And this pattern is predicted to worsen due to climate change.

As it becomes more common to face climate disasters again and again, what does this mean for the mental health and wellbeing of people affected?

In a new study published today in the Lancet Public Health, we found experiencing repeated disasters leads to more severe and sustained effects on mental health compared to experiencing a single disaster.

What we did in our study

We drew on ten years of Australian data (2009–19) from the nationally representative Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia survey.

Specifically, our study involved data from 1,511 people who experienced at least one disaster. We tracked them from the year before the first disaster, at the first disaster, and, where applicable, each subsequent disaster, and a few years after each disaster.

We also included 3,880 people who did not experience disasters during this time but shared similar demographic, socioeconomic, health and place-based characteristics for comparison.

We measured exposure to climate disasters based on whether respondents reported a weather-related disaster (for example, flood, bushfire or cyclone) damaged or destroyed their home in the previous year.

The mental health outcomes were measured using two questionnaires commonly administered to assess depression and anxiety disorders (the 5-item mental health inventory) and psychological distress (the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale).

Cumulative effects

Our results show mental health declines became more severe with repeated disasters.

The graph below plots the mental health trajectories for everyone in our study who experienced at least one disaster, and the control group who did not experience any disasters. We looked at a maximum of three disasters in the study due to data availability.

It shows experiencing one disaster led to a decline in mental health during the disaster year, followed by a recovery to pre-disaster levels in the post-disaster period.

However, with repeated disasters, mental health trajectories declined further and it took longer to recover to pre-disaster levels.

We also found experiencing an additional disaster close to a previous disaster (for example, one or two years apart) was linked to greater mental health declines than disasters that were spaced further apart.

Some risk factors

We observed that certain factors consistently shaped mental health outcomes. For instance, having social support was consistently a protective factor, while having a long-term health condition consistently increased the risk of poorer mental health. This was true regardless of the number of disasters someone experienced.

On the other hand, some risk factors became stronger with each disaster. In particular, households with lower incomes, those in rural areas, and younger people appeared to experience greater effects of cumulative disasters.

There are some limitations to our research. For example, the data we had did not detail the type or severity of each disaster. It also was limited in what it could tell us about the mental health effects of three or more disasters.

Nonetheless, our study provides novel insights into the mental health consequences of multiple climate disasters. This highlights the need for better support for communities facing an increasing number of emergencies.

Our findings also align with other studies that have observed increasing risk to mental health with multiple disasters.

At the same time, our findings add a new perspective by showing how trajectories can change over time. People’s mental health often recovers to pre-disaster levels after a single disaster, but repeat disasters can delay or halt this recovery.

Why might repeated disasters lead to worse mental health?

Repeated disasters, especially when they occur in close succession, can lead to cumulative stress driven by trauma and uncertainty. This can create a reinforcing cycle. People already facing social disadvantages – such as poor health and low income – are more likely to be exposed to disasters. In turn, these events disproportionately affect those facing existing disadvantages.

The result is a compounding effect that can contribute to worsening mental health outcomes and slower recovery over multiple disasters. This means disasters are an issue of social equity and must be considered in efforts to reduce poverty and improve social outcomes, as well as health outcomes.

Repeated disasters in particular can drain financial, social and community resources. They can exacerbate existing strain on household savings, disrupted social ties due to displacement, and reduced access to services after disasters – especially in rural areas.

What can we do to support people through multiple disasters?

We need to transform the way we think about disasters. It’s estimated children born today will experience up to seven times the number of extreme weather events across their lifetimes than someone born in 1960.

We are starting to get a better picture of what people need to recover from climate disasters. Our research points to the need for clinical services (for example, GPs) to screen for past disaster exposures in mental health assessments.

Emergency services need to plan services to reach at-risk groups during disasters. They also need to ensure recovery planning considers the effects of past disasters, for example by making sure support programs are not just tied to one disaster, but can be used across multiple.

The current approach to emergency services that looks at “one disaster at a time” doesn’t work anymore. As the climate continues to change, we urgently need to consider the effects of multiple disasters in public health, welfare and disaster services.

Ang Li receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Claire Leppold does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. People’s mental health goes downhill after repeated climate disasters – it’s an issue of social equity – https://theconversation.com/peoples-mental-health-goes-downhill-after-repeated-climate-disasters-its-an-issue-of-social-equity-254475

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Victoria Cornell, Research Fellow, Flinders University

It would be impossible at this stage in the election campaign to be unaware that housing is a critical, potentially vote-changing, issue. But the suite of policies being proposed by the major parties largely focus on young, first home buyers.

What is glaringly noticeable is the lack of measures to improve availability and affordability for older people.

Modern older lives are diverse, yet older people have become too easily pigeonholed. No more so than in respect to property, where a perception has flourished that older people own more than their fair share of housing wealth.

While the value of housing has no doubt increased, home ownership rates among people reaching retirement age has actually declined since the mid-1990s.

Older people can also face rental stress and homelessness – with almost 20,000 homeless people in Australia aged over 55. Severe housing stress is a key contributing to those homelessness figures.

It’s easy to blame older Australians for causing, or exacerbating, the housing crisis. But doing so ignores the fact that right now, our housing system is badly failing many older people too.

No age limits

Owning a home has traditionally provided financial security for retirees, especially ones relying on the age pension. This is so much so, that home ownership is sometimes described as the “fourth pillar” of Australia’s retirement system.

But housing has become more expensive – to rent or buy – for everyone.

Falling rates of home ownership
combined with carriage of mortgage debt into retirement, restricted access to shrinking stocks of social housing, and lack of housing affordability in the private rental market have a particular impact on older people.

Housing rethink

Housing policy for older Australians has mostly focused on age-specific options, such as retirement villages and aged care. Taking such a limited view excludes other potential solutions from across the broader housing system that should be considered.

Furthermore, not all older people want to live in a retirement village, and fewer than 5% of older people live in residential aged care.

During my Churchill Fellowship study exploring alternative, affordable models of housing for older people, I discovered three cultural themes that are stopping us from having a productive conversation about housing for older people.

• Australia’s tradition of home ownership undervalues renting and treats housing as a commodity, not a basic need. This disadvantages older renters and those on low income.

• There’s a stigma regarding welfare in Australia, which influences who is seen as “deserving” and shapes the policy responses.

• While widely encouraged, “ageing-in-place” means different things to different people. It can include formal facilities or the family home that needs modifications to make it habitable as someone ages.

These themes are firmly entrenched, often driven by policy narratives such as the primacy of home ownership over renting. In the past 50 years or so, many have come to view welfare, such as social housing, as a last resort, and have aimed to age in their family home or move into a “desirable” retirement village.

Variety is key

A more flexible approach could deliver housing for older Australians that is more varied in design, cost and investment models.

The promises made so far by political parties to help younger home buyers are welcome. However, the housing system is a complex beast and there is no single quick fix solution.

First and foremost, a national housing and homelessness plan is required, which also involves the states and territories. The plan must include explicit consideration of housing options for older people.

Funding for housing developments needs to be more flexible in terms of public-private sector investment and direct government assistance that goes beyond first home buyer incentives.

International models

For inspiration, we could look to Denmark, which has developed numerous co-housing communities.

Co-housing models generally involve self-managing communities where residents have their own private, self-contained home, supported by communal facilities and spaces. They can be developed and designed by the owner or by a social housing provider. They can be age-specific or multi-generational.

Funding flexibility, planning and design are key to their success. Institutional investors include

• so-called impact investors, who seek social returns and often accept lower financial returns

• community housing providers

• member-based organisations, such as mutuals and co-operatives.

Government also plays a part by expediting the development process and providing new pathways to more affordable ownership and rental options.

Europe is also leading the way on social housing, where cultural attitudes are different from here.

In Vienna, Austria, more than 60% of residents live in 440,000 socially provided homes. These homes are available for a person’s entire life, with appropriate age-related modifications permitted if required.

At over 20% of the total housing stock, social housing is also a large sector in Denmark, where the state and municipalities support the construction of non-profit housing.

Overcoming stereotyes

Our population is ageing rapidly, and more older people are now renting or facing housing insecurity.

If policymakers continue to ignore their housing needs, even more older people will be at risk of living on the street, and as a result will suffer poor health and social isolation.

Overcoming stereotypes – such as the idea that all older people are wealthy homeowners – is key to building fairer, more inclusive solutions.

This isn’t just about older Australians. It’s about creating a housing system that works for everyone, at every stage of life.

Victoria Cornell is employed by Flinders University, and received The AV Jennings Churchill Fellowship to investigate alternative, affordable models of housing that could help older Australians to age-in-place

– ref. Older Australians are also hurting from the housing crisis. Where are the election policies to help them? – https://theconversation.com/older-australians-are-also-hurting-from-the-housing-crisis-where-are-the-election-policies-to-help-them-255391

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Xanthe Mallett, Criminologist, CQUniversity Australia

It’s election time, which means the age old “tough on crime” rhetoric is being heralded by many politicians aiming to score votes.

Opposition leader Peter Dutton is pushing for a national public sex offender register. Currently only Western Australia has a registry that is open to the public.

In South Australia, Premier Peter Malinauskas brought in tougher child sex offender laws earlier this week.

What are these new laws in SA?

Under these new laws, serious child sex offenders are to be permanently locked up or electronically monitored, if they reoffend.

Automatic indefinite detention is a significant change.

Previously, the South Australian attorney-general could apply to the Supreme Court to request an offender be indefinitely detained, if the offender was considered to remain a danger to children and could not be rehabilitated.

The courts would then decide if they would grant the request, basing their decision on medical and other expert evidence.

The changes in SA mean those found guilty of a second serious sexual offence against anyone younger than 17 now receive automatic indefinite detention.

To be considered for release under the new law, an offender needs to show they can control their sexual instincts – so the onus is on them to prove they are not at risk of reoffending.

To achieve this, two court-selected psychologists would have to provide reports demonstrating the offender was both willing and able to resist committing further sex offences.

And if they are ever released, they will be electronically monitored for the rest of their lives.

In addition, registered child sex offenders would be banned from working with anyone under 18.

The new law also strengthens “Carly’s Law”, which focuses on reducing the sexual grooming of children online by adult predators.

Inconsistencies across Australia

The age of legal consent is 16 across Australia, except SA and Tasmania, where it is 17.

In 2024, an Australian Institute of Criminology report highlighted many of the inconsistencies across the country, including terminology and definitions of sexual offences, despite efforts to achieve national regularity.

Each state and territory approaches the problem of child sexual abuse differently.

In NSW, for example, sentencing for child sexual offences has increased over time. This reflects societal expectations given what we know now about the long-term, traumatic consequences of victimisation.

However, one consideration in sentencing in NSW is whether the sentence could have a “crushing” effect on the offender, and whether they may be entitled to an “element of mercy”.

Certainly, a full life sentence is a significant departure from this position.

Why now?

There is little doubt this is a political move, as these changes were first promised by Labor in the build-up to the 2022 SA election.

Then in January 2025, Labor announced it planned to introduce them in March – right before the federal election.

On the face of it, toughening laws aimed at reducing sexual violence against children is a good thing. No one would argue.

However, the legislation has been fast-tracked in the wake of a number of cases where those previously convicted of a sexual offence against a child reoffended.

One such case is Dylan Lloyd, who is alleged to have assaulted a 12-year-old girl while she travelled alone on a train. Lloyd had previously been convicted of assaulting a 10-year-old girl in 2021, and since then more alleged victims have come forward to police.

Cases such as Lloyd’s are preventable, as in this case Lloyd should still be imprisoned. This is one step forward. But consistency across states is needed and the long-term consequences need considering more fully.

Whether these laws will have the desired deterrent effect has not been answered.

We need to ensure personal and societal factors affecting crime rates, and which influence peoples’ attitudes and behaviours, are not overlooked.

Will the laws be good for the community?

These changes do have the potential to have a meaningful impact, but changing the behaviour of potential offenders is far more complex.

Potential offenders usually don’t consider the law. At a micro level, their behaviour is most affected by biological and psychological factors, including alcohol, drug addiction and mental health issues, as well as social and environmental factors.

In addition, there are numerous human rights and constitutional issues with permanent detention or lifelong monitoring, and the SA government may be walking into a legal minefield now they have removed the possibility of parole.

It would be better to allow judges options for discretion, as the context in which the offending happened is crucial in determining the likelihood of someone being successfully rehabilitated.

Mandatory full life sentences ignore the fact many sex offenders can be successfully rehabilitated.

One study in Queensland, which considered local and global evidence, indicated sexual recidivism can be significant reduced when offenders complete sex offender treatment programs.

Although it costs money to run these programs, the savings outweigh the costs of ongoing incarceration – particularly if we consider indefinite detention.

Black-and-white laws with little room for movement produce unintended and harmful outcomes.

It will be interesting to see how the new laws in SA play out in court and if any other states and territories follow suit.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Locked up for life? Unpacking South Australia’s new child sex crime laws – https://theconversation.com/locked-up-for-life-unpacking-south-australias-new-child-sex-crime-laws-255429

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Clare Collins, Laureate Professor in Nutrition and Dietetics, University of Newcastle

Did you start 2025 with a promise to eat better but didn’t quite get there? Or maybe you want to branch out from making the same meal every week or the same lunch for work almost every day?

Small dietary changes can make a big difference to how you feel, how your body functions and health indicators such as blood pressure, blood sugar and cholesterol levels.

You can meet your nutrient needs by eating a range of foods from the key food groups:

• vegetables and fruit
• protein (legumes, beans, tofu, meats, poultry, fish, eggs, nuts, seeds)
• grains (mostly wholegrain and high-fibre)
• calcium-rich foods (milk, yoghurt, cheese, non-dairy alternatives).

But you also need a variety of foods to get enough vitamins, minerals and phytonutrients from plant foods. Phytonutrients have antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, anti-cancer and other functions that help keep you healthy.

Use these five dietary tweaks to boost your nutrient intake and add variety to what you eat.

1. Include different types of bran to boost your fibre intake

Different types of dietary fibre help improve bowel function through fermentation by gut microbes in the colon, or large bowel. This creates larger, softer bowel motions that then stimulate the colon to contract, leading to more regular bowel movements.

Add different types of dietary fibre – such as oat bran, wheat bran or psyllium husk – to breakfast cereal or add some into recipes that use white flour:

• psyllium husk is high in soluble fibre. It dissolves in water forming viscous gel that binds to bile salts, which get excreted and your body is then not able to convert them into cholesterol. This helps lower blood cholesterol levels as well as with retaining water in your colon, making bowel motions softer. Soluble fibre also helps slow the digestive process, making you feel full and slows the normal rise in blood sugar levels after you eat

• wheat bran is an insoluble fibre, also called roughage. It adds bulk to bowel motions, which helps keep your bowel function regular

• oat bran contains beta-glucan, a soluble fibre, as well as some insoluble fibre.

Try keeping small containers topped up with the different fibres so you don’t forget to add them regularly to your breakfast.

2. Add a different canned bean to your shopping list

Dried beans are a type of legume. From baked beans to red kidney beans and chickpeas, the canned varieties are easy to use and inexpensive. Different colours and varieties have slightly different nutrient and phytonutrient profiles.

Canned beans are very high in total dietary fibre, including soluble fibre and resistant starch, a complex carbohydrate that resists digestion in the small intestine and then passes into the colon where it gets fermented.

The body digests and absorbs the nutrients in legumes slowly, contributing to their low glycemic index. So eating them makes you feel full.

Regularly eating more legumes lowers blood sugar levels, and total and LDL (bad) cholesterol.

Add legumes to dishes such as bolognese, curry, soups and salads (our No Money No Time website has some great recipes).

3. Try a different wholegrain, like buckwheat or 5-grain porridge

Wholegrain products contain all three layers of the grain. Both the inner germ layer and outer bran layer are rich in fibre, vitamins and minerals, while the inner endosperm contains mostly starch (think white flour).

Wholegrains include oats, corn (yes, popcorn too), rye, barley, buckwheat, quinoa, brown rice and foods made with wholegrains, like some breads and breakfast cereals such as rolled oats, muesli and five-grain porridge.

Wholegrains aren’t just breakfast and lunch foods. Dinner recipe ideas include tuna and veggie pasta bake,
chicken quesadillas and buckwheat mushroom risotto.

4. Try a different vegetable or salad mix every week

A review of the relationship between plant-based diets and dying of any cause followed more than half a million people across 12 long-term studies.

It found people who ate the most plants had a lower risk of dying during the study and follow-up period than those who ate hardly any.

Try adding a new or different vegetable or salad item to your weekly meals, such as rainbow coleslaw, canned beetroot, raw carrot, red onion, avocado or tomatoes.

Or try a stir-fry with bok choy, celery, capsicum, carrot, zucchini and herbs.

The more variety, the more colour, flavour and textures – not to mention phytonutrients.

5. Go nuts

Cashews, walnuts, almonds, macadamias, pecans and mixed nuts make a great snack.

(Peanuts are technically a legume because they grow in the ground but we count them as nuts because their nutrient profile is very similar to the tree nuts.)

You have to chew nuts well, which means your brain receives messages that you are eating and should expect to soon feel full.

Nuts are energy-dense, due to their high fat content. A matchbox portion size (30 grams) contains about 15 grams of fat, 5 grams of protein and 740 kilojoules.

While some people think you need to avoid nuts to lose weight, a review of energy restricted diets found people who ate nuts lost as much weight as those who didn’t.

My colleagues and I at the University of Newcastle have created a free Healthy Eating Quiz where you can check your diet quality score, see how healthy your usual eating patterns are and how your score compares to others. You can also get some great ideas to make your meals more interesting .

Clare Collins AO is a Laureate Professor in Nutrition and Dietetics at the University of Newcastle, NSW and a Hunter Medical Research Institute (HMRI) affiliated researcher. She is a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Leadership Fellow and has received research grants from NHMRC, ARC, MRFF, HMRI, Diabetes Australia, Heart Foundation, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, nib foundation, Rijk Zwaan Australia, WA Dept. Health, Meat and Livestock Australia, and Greater Charitable Foundation. She has consulted to SHINE Australia, Novo Nordisk, Quality Bakers, the Sax Institute, Dietitians Australia and the ABC. She was a team member conducting systematic reviews to inform the 2013 Australian Dietary Guidelines update, the Heart Foundation evidence reviews on meat and dietary patterns and current Co-Chair of the Guidelines Development Advisory Committee for Clinical Practice Guidelines for Treatment of Obesity.

– ref. Sick of eating the same things? 5 ways to boost your nutrition and keep meals interesting and healthy – https://theconversation.com/sick-of-eating-the-same-things-5-ways-to-boost-your-nutrition-and-keep-meals-interesting-and-healthy-245672

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Robert G. Patman, Professor of International Relations, University of Otago

Is it possible to reconcile increased international support for Ukraine with Donald Trump’s plan to end the war? At their recent meeting in London, Christopher Luxon and his British counterpart Keir Starmer seemed to think so.

Starmer thanked New Zealand for its “support” for a “coalition of the willing” that would safeguard the implementation of a potential peace deal concluded by the Trump administration.

But unless something drastically changes in the near future, all the signs point to the US president envisaging a Ukraine peace settlement on Russian president Vladimir Putin’s terms.

According to that view, peace can only be achieved if Ukraine is prepared to accept that territories wholly or partially annexed by Russia now belong to Moscow.

In 2014, Russia seized Crimea on the Black Sea. Following the illegal 2022 invasion, Russia claimed four parts of eastern and southern Ukraine as its own – Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and the Zaporizhzhia region.

At the same time, Trump’s peace deal includes a provision that rules out NATO membership for Ukraine. This meets a key Russian demand that seeks to deny Ukraine’s sovereign right to choose its own security arrangements.

According to Trump, Putin’s major concession is the promise that Russia will not annex the rest of Ukraine – something Moscow has been trying to do for the past three years.

To accept this, however, liberal democracies such as New Zealand and Britain would be tacitly signalling they share common values and interests with the Trump administration and its apparent enthusiasm for a geopolitical partnership with Putin’s dictatorship.

And in some ways, Trump’s Ukraine peace initiative is a bigger challenge for New Zealand than it is for Britain.

Lessons of the past

Like Britain, New Zealand fought in two world wars in the 20th century to advance, among other things, certain key international principles. These included state sovereignty and a prohibition on the use of force to change borders, principles subsequently enshrined in the United Nations Charter.

But unlike Britain, New Zealand is a relatively small state that does not have a veto in the UN Security Council to protect its interests. Consequently, it is even more dependent on an international rules-based order for its security and prosperity.

For New Zealand, Trump’s current Ukraine peace plan is a clear and present danger because it would set such a terrible precedent.

Under the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons (left over from when it was part of the Soviet Union) in return for assurances from Russia, the US and UK that recognised Ukrainian independence and the inviolability of its existing borders.

The Trump administration’s plan, however, insists Ukraine must accept the illegal and partial dismemberment of its territory to attain peace with Russia.

Rewarding Russian aggression in this way is tantamount to a failure to learn the historical lessons of the 20th century. In particular, it seems to forget the period during the 1930s when Britain tried in vain to appease an expansionist Nazi regime in Germany.

Trump’s peace plan basically endorses the idea that “might is right” and that it is fine for great powers or big countries to steal land from smaller countries.

Adjusting NZ foreign policy

In Trump’s top-down world view, multilateral institutions and international law are regarded as superfluous at best and an enemy at worst.

In such a world, relatively small powers such as New Zealand, with “no cards to play” at the top table, must either submit to the dominance of great powers (including the US) or suffer the consequences.

Moreover, there is a real risk that Trump’s stance toward Putin’s regime will be viewed as weakness by China, Russia’s most important backer. This could embolden Beijing to increasingly assert itself in the Indo-Pacific, including the Pacific Islands region, where New Zealand has core strategic interests.

Trump’s plan for Ukraine brings into sharp focus what has already been evident from other recent trends: a domestic slide toward autocracy in Washington, the unilateral imposition of tariffs, and territorial threats against close allies Canada and Denmark.

As European Union Commission President Ursula von der Leyen put it, “The West as we knew it no longer exists.”

The transactional nature of Trump’s leadership – including that peace in Ukraine can be bought with mineral rights and territorial trade-offs – suggests the US can no longer be relied on to provide a security guarantee for liberal democracies in Europe or elsewhere.

The current New Zealand government needs to find the self-confidence and resolve to admit Trump is backing Putin’s imperial project in Ukraine. And it needs to adjust its foreign policy accordingly.

This does not mean Wellington should weaken its traditional friendship with the US.

On the contrary, many Americans might expect and welcome the prospect of New Zealand clearly and publicly standing against their president’s dangerous alignment with an authoritarian regime at Ukraine’s expense.

Robert G. Patman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Peace in our time? Why NZ should resist Trump’s one-sided plan for Ukraine – https://theconversation.com/peace-in-our-time-why-nz-should-resist-trumps-one-sided-plan-for-ukraine-255495

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Monica Gagliano, Research Associate Professor in Evolutionary Biology, Southern Cross University

Earth’s cycles of light and dark profoundly affect billions of organisms. Events such as solar eclipses are known to bring about marked shifts in animals, but do they have the same effect on plants?

During a solar eclipse in a forest in Italy’s Dolomites region, scientists seized the chance to explore that fascinating question.

The researchers were monitoring the bioelectrical impulses of spruce trees, when a solar eclipse passed over. They left their sensors running to record the trees’ response to the eclipse – and what they observed was astonishing.

The spruce trees not only responded to the solar eclipse – they actively anticipated it, by synchronising their bioelectrical signals hours in advance.

This forest-wide phenomenon, detailed today in the journal Royal Society Open Science, reveals a new layer of complexity in plant behaviour. It adds to emerging evidence that plants actively participate in their ecosystems.

Do trees respond collectively?

The research was led by Professor Alessandro Chiolerio of the Italian Institute of Technology, and Professor Monica Gagliano from Australia’s Southern Cross University, who is the lead author on this article. It also involved a team of international scientists.

A solar eclipse occurs when the Moon passes between the Sun and Earth, fully or partially blocking the Sun’s light.

An eclipse can inspire awe and even social cohesion in humans. Other animals have been shown to gather and synchronise their movements during such an event.

But scientists know very little about how plants respond to solar eclipses. Some research suggests the rapid transitions from darkness to light during an eclipse can change plant behaviour. But this research focuses on the responses of individual plants.

The latest study set out to discover if trees respond to a solar eclipse together, as a living collective.

What the research involved

Charged molecules travel through the cells of all living organisms, transmitting electrical signals as they go. Collectively, this electrical activity is known as the organism’s “electrome”.

The electrical activity is primarily driven by the movement of ions across cell membranes. It creates tiny currents that allow organisms, including humans, to coordinate their body and communicate.

The researchers wanted to investigated the electrical signals of spruce trees (Picea abies) during a partial solar eclipse on October 25, 2022. It took place in the Costa Bocche forest near Paneveggio in the Dolomites area, Italy.

The scientists set out to understand the trees’ electrical activity during the hour-long eclipse. They used custom-built sensors and wired them to three trees. Two were healthy trees about 70 years old, one in full sun and one in full shade. The third was a healthy tree about 20 years old, in full shade.

They also attached the sensors to five tree stumps – the remnants old trees, originally part of a pristine forest, but which were devastated by a storm several years earlier.

For each tree and stump, the researchers used five pairs of electrodes, placed in both the inner and outer layers of the tree, including on exposed roots, branches and trunks. The electrodes were connected to the sensors.

This set-up allowed the scientists to monitor the bioelectrical activity from multiple trees and stumps across four sites during the solar eclipse. They examined both individual tree responses, and bioelectrical signals between trees.

In particular, the scientists measured changes in the trees’ “bioelectrical potentials”. This term refers to the differences in voltage across cell membranes.

What did they find?

The electrical activity of all three trees became significantly more synchronised around the eclipse – both before and during the one-hour event. These changes occur at a microscopic level, such as inside water and lymph molecules in the tree.

The two older trees in the study had a much more pronounced early response to the impending eclipse than the young tree. This suggests older trees may have developed mechanisms to anticipate and respond to such events, similar to their responses to seasonal changes.

Solar eclipses may seem rare from a human perspective, but they follow cycles which can occur well within the lifespan of long-lived trees. The scientists also detected bioelectrical waves travelling between the trees. This suggests older trees may transmit their ecological knowledge to younger trees.

Such a dynamic is consistent with studies showing long-distance signalling between plants can help them coordinate various physiological functions in response to environmental changes.

The researchers also detected changes in the bioelectrical responses of the stumps during the eclipse, albeit less pronounced than in the standing trees. This suggests the stumps were still alive.

The research team then used computer modelling, and advanced analytical methods including quantum field theory, to test the findings of the physical experiment.

The results reinforced the experimental results. That is, not only did the eclipse influence the bioelectrical responses of individual trees, the activity was correlated. This suggests a cohesive, organism-like reaction at the forest scale.

Understanding forest connections

These findings align with extensive prior research by others, highlighting the extent to which trees in forest ecosystems are connected.

These behaviours may ultimately influence the forest ecosystem’s resilience, biodiversity and overall function, by helping it cope with rapid and unpredictable changes.

The findings also underscore the importance of protecting older forests, which serve as pillars of ecosystem resilience – potentially preserving and transmitting invaluable ecological knowledge.

This research is featured in a documentary, Il Codice del Bosco (The Forest Code), premiering in Italy on May 1, 2025.

Monica Gagliano received funding for this research from the Templeton World Charity Foundation.

Prudence Gibson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. ‘A living collective’: study shows trees synchronise electrical signals during a solar eclipse – https://theconversation.com/a-living-collective-study-shows-trees-synchronise-electrical-signals-during-a-solar-eclipse-255499

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Clune, Honorary Associate, Government and International Relations, University of Sydney

While many Australians have already voted at pre-poll stations and by post, the politicking continues right up until May 3.

So what’s happened across the country over the past five weeks?

Here, six experts analyse how the campaign has looked in New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria and Western Australia.

New South Wales

David Clune, honorary associate, government and international relations, University of Sydney

The campaign in NSW is concluding much as it began, largely mirroring the Australia-wide trend with little evidence of localism.

The main themes of both sides remain similar: cost-of-living alleviation, improved health care and housing affordability. Both leaders quickly matched each other’s promises: it could be described as the “Albanutton” campaign.

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s campaign continued to be hampered by slip-ups and a lack of focus, detail and discipline. Although the government’s record had given him plenty of scope, Dutton struggled to land a blow.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese had his share of gaffes, but appeared more coherent and convincing. Labor’s negative campaign to portray Dutton as a local Trump clone seems to have been effective.

Some in the Liberal Party argue there’s pent-up resentment against the government in Western Sydney that hasn’t been picked up by opinion polls. Whether this hypothetical backlash turns into seats on polling day remains to be seen.

Bennelong (notionally Liberal after the redistribution) and Gilmore, seem the most likely Liberal gains. Parramatta, Reid, Paterson, Robertson and Werriwa are also in play. There is speculation about an independent threat in the safe Labor seat of McMahon.

The Coalition has a fight on its hands to retain Cowper and Bradfield, with strong independent challenges in both seats. There is a tight three-way contest in Calare between former National turned independent, Andrew Gee, a National and a Teal.

As there is little real policy differentiation between the major parties; it seems to come down to which side the voters find more credible and trustworthy in uncertain times.

According to a Newspoll published on April 27, Albanese led Dutton as preferred prime minister by 51% to 35%. Only 39% of those surveyed believed the government deserved to be re-elected. However, 62% believed the Coalition was not ready to govern.

An aggregate of polling data showed in NSW, as at April 28, Labor’s two-party preferred vote was 53.0%, an increase since the March Budget of 2.8% and of 1.6% since the 2022 election.

Queensland

Paul Williams, associate professor of politics and journalism, Griffith University

In the campaign’s closing week, Queensland remains largely inconsequential as to whether Albanese or Dutton will call The Lodge home.

But that doesn’t mean the Liberal National Party (LNP) isn’t concerned about its prospects north of the Tweed.

While the LNP still leads Labor in the two party-preferred vote, 54 to 46, across Queensland – roughly the 2022 result – last week’s YouGov poll found that result to be a three-point fall for the LNP from the previous week.

While Labor is hardly going to blitz Queensland, some LNP seats are nonetheless more vulnerable than at any time over the past decade. These include the regional seats of Leichhardt (3.4 %) and Flynn (3.8%), the outer suburban seats of Dickson (held by Dutton by just 1.7%), Longman (3.1%), Forde (4.2%) and Petrie (4.4%), and the middle-suburb mortgage-belt seat of Bonner (3.4%).

Independent Suzie Holt might also worry the LNP in the usually safe seat of Groom, around Toowoomba.
But the last-minute “rescue” of the LNP by Pauline Hanson’s One Nation (PHON) – Hanson (reciprocating the LNP’s preferencing of PHON) pulped existing how to vote cards and printed new ones placing the LNP second in most seats – might just save the opposition.

However, the campaign has offered little clarity on the prospects in other key Queensland contests: the battles for three Greens-held inner-urban seats of Brisbane, Ryan and Griffith.

But a mid-April DemosAU poll found the Greens’ primary vote falling by 1.7 points to 29%, a figure exactly tied with Labor’s, which has risen 2.7% since 2022.

Problematically for Dutton, the LNP, whose primary vote remains locked at 36%, appears not to have capitalised on cost-of-living angst in inner Brisbane.

Despite 58% of inner Brisbane leaning centre-left, these figures suggest the LNP may fail to win any Greens seats, with the contest a close one between the Greens and Labor only. The result rests on who runs third: Labor or the Greens. There could be a mere 100 votes in these must-watch seats.

In the Northern Territory, the seat of Lingiari, which takes in Alice Springs and Katherine, is held by Labor’s Marion Scrymgour by 1.7%. In 2022, just one in three enrolled voters cast a ballot in the electorate, prompting the Australian Electoral Commission to try to increase voter turnout. In the wash-up, it will be interesting to see if this improves.

South Australia

Rob Manwaring, associate professor of politics and public policy, Flinders University

Given SA is home to only a handful of marginal seats, it’s not a well-trodden part of the campaign trail. That’s typical of most federal elections.

What’s not so typical is the overall feel of the campaign. The rhythms of Australian elections are changing. On one level, there are the familiar tropes and activities; TV debates, campaign launches and letter box blitzes in key marginal seats.

Yet, on the other hand, voters behave differently than they used to. Data from the Australian Election Study(AES) tells us far fewer voters have made their decision “a long time ago” (55% in 2007, down to 36% in 2022).

This means the number of “soft” voters is probably much higher as major parties have fewer “lifetime voters”. Voters are much more transactional.

Voters are more distanced from parties, too. The study shows fewer voters use how to vote cards (51% used them in 2007, 31% in 2022). We can’t rely on traditional metrics in the same way, such as the national two-party preferred vote given the number of “non-traditional seats”.

In short, it’s now harder to more know how the campaigns are tracking. So while the Coalition campaign has been beset by a number of mis-steps, how this is playing out is far less clear.

Further, a strange paradox of the emergence of the Teals and other independents is there is a stronger local focus on representation, rather than broader policy debates. Again, AES data suggests most voters tend to vote for policy reasons (like the economy or health) but the current media focus on the major parties, especially through the TV debates, actually seems to narrow the broader policy discussions.

So while the proof will be in the pudding when the votes are counted, it may be high time to reflect on what campaign strategies work best for politics in 2025.

Tasmania

Robert Hortle, deputy director of the Tasmanian Policy Exchange, University of Tasmania

On Australia’s South Island, most of the campaign focus has been on Lyons, Franklin and Braddon.

In Lyons, Tassie’s most marginal electorate (ALP by 0.9%), the latest polls have swung behind the ALP’s Rebecca White. Her popularity as a state MP for the electorate has been bolstered by some crucial slip ups from Liberal candidate Susie Bower.

One potentially vote-winning policy announcement that has gone under the radar nationally is Labor’s commitment of $24 million to guarantee the continued operation of the Boyer Paper Mill in Lyons, an important employer and regional symbol of economic activity.

Franklin has been full of drama. 19-year-old Greens candidate Owen Fitzgerald had to withdraw his candidacy after it emerged that he is likely to still be a New Zealand citizen. It seemed like the Greens would encourage their voters to preference independent anti-salmon candidate Peter George.

However, when the party’s how to vote cards were published, they said “Vote 1 – Owen Fitzgerald”.

According to the Greens, this was to make sure that voters completed their ballot correctly. The Liberal Party argued the Greens were just trying to secure public funding.

There have also been billboard shenanigans and various other dirty (or should that be clean?) tricks.

The result is likely to rest on how Liberal voters feel about salmon farming and how this influences their preferences. Are they so anti-Labor that they will preference Peter George ahead of Julie Collins despite his anti-salmon stance? Or will they put Collins ahead of George based on Labor’s support for the industry?

In Braddon, where salmon farming is again a key issue, Labor’s Anne Urquhart has been more visible on the campaign trail than Liberal Mal Hingston. Although the margin at the last election was 8% in favour of the Liberals, last-minute polling (albeit with a small sample size) has offered Labor hope of winning the crucial seat.

Bridget Archer, Liberal MP for Bass, has had a solid if unspectacular campaign. She was helped by Labor selecting a low-profile first-time candidate, Jess Teesdale, who the party sees as “one for the future”. Teesdale revealed her “greenness” – in both senses of the word – by accidentally contradicting the ALP’s position on native forest logging, which is always a flashpoint in Tassie.

Victoria

Zareh Ghazarian, senior lecturer in politics, school of social sciences, Monash University

With just days to go in this campaign, Victoria still looks like a key state that will determine who governs for the next three years. Many seats across the state have new boundaries following the AEC redistribution.

Victoria is also home to the most marginal seat in the country. Deakin, which covers the eastern suburbs of Melbourne, is held by Liberal Michael Sukkar with a margin of just 0.02%, according to ABC Election Analyst Antony Green.

Deakin will be the seat to watch on election night. If the Liberal Party can’t hold on to Deakin, it would be unlikely to be able to win government.

There are also other seats that will provide a fascinating contest on Saturday night. Labor will face its own test in trying to retain Chisholm and Aston, both in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne.

Chisholm is a swinging seat. It has been won by both Labor and Liberal parties over the past 40 years and is currently held by Labor with a margin of 3.3%. It has had a significant redistribution, losing strong Labor booths in the north and south parts of the electorate.

Aston is also on a similarly slim margin of 3.6% and was famously won by Labor at the by-election in 2023. Holding onto Aston will be a crucial test for Labor. Losing this seat may threaten Labor’s chances of forming a majority government after the election.

There are also the two seats held by the independents which promise to be tight contests. The previously safe Liberal seats of Kooyong and Goldstein, which were won by Monique Ryan and Zoe Daniel respectively, have been targeted by the Liberal Party. The independents will face a significant battle and, if successful, will demonstrate a significant shift in voting behaviour has occurred in these electorates.

Western Australia

Narelle Miragliotta, associate professor in politics, Murdoch University

The idea that WA would determine the outcome of government has been a persistent theme throughout the campaign, reinforced by four visits from Albanese and three from Dutton. The amount of attention WA has received from the major party leaders was more than any state or territory other than the three big population states: NSW, Victoria and Queensland. Even then, Albanese made one more visit to WA than he did Queensland at the time of writing.

Both major parties brought their big guns on the campaign trail. Former Liberal PM John Howard visited Curtin, Tangney and Bullwinkel. The newly re-elected WA Labor Premier Roger Cook campaigned heavily with Albanese during his visits. And in the final days of the campaign, Mark McGowan, the popular former premier, was seen on the hustings with Labor candidates in four marginal seats.

Neither major party leader ventured to places where they might receive an unwelcome reception. Dutton’s intention to steer clear of the Shire of Collie, particularly the town of Muja, the proposed site of the one of the seven nuclear power plants, was signalled early in the campaign. Albanese avoided electorates in the state’s southwest opposed to coastal wind farms.

There were no significant candidate blunders. However, questions were raised about the whereabouts of Andrew Hastie, shadow defence minister and (putative) future Liberal leader. Hastie was also questioned about the missing party logo (as against party authorisations) on his campaign materials.

The competition between the Nationals and Liberals in the seat of Bullwinkel was without major media incident. This includes when the Nationals’ candidate, Mia Davies, broke with the federal coalition over support for Labor’s production tax credits plan.

The contest for Curtin attracted outsized local media attention. In the final days of the campaign, there were renewed efforts to link the independent incumbent, Kate Chaney, to the Greens. All the proof the West Australian newspaper required was Chaney’s connection to a senior Greens party official, evidenced by a 2024 donation totalling $104, a photo and an author’s credit.

To what extent has the leader visits and the campaign moved the needle? A recent study found party leader visits make only a modest impact on the vote. Polling for Labor and the Liberals in WA has remained very steady. This doesn’t mean some seats won’t change, but to which party or candidate remains unclear.

Paul Williams is a research associate with the T.J. Ryan Foundation.

David Clune, Narelle Miragliotta, Rob Manwaring, Robert Hortle, and Zareh Ghazarian do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. State of the states: the campaign is almost over, so how has it played out across Australia? – https://theconversation.com/state-of-the-states-the-campaign-is-almost-over-so-how-has-it-played-out-across-australia-253125

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Briony Hill, Deputy Head, Health and Social Care Unit and Senior Research Fellow, Monash University

According to a study from the United States, women experience weight stigma in maternity care at almost every visit. We expect this experience to be similar in Australia, where more than 50% of women of reproductive age live in larger bodies.

Weight stigma can present as stereotyping, negative attitudes and discriminatory actions towards larger-bodied people.

It occurs in other areas of health care and in society at large. But our research is focused on weight stigma in maternity care, which can cause significant harm for larger-bodied women and their babies.

What does weight stigma look like in maternity care?

Sometimes weight stigma is explicit, or on purpose. Explicit weight stigma includes health-care professionals having negative attitudes towards caring for larger-bodied pregnant women. This might present, for instance, when health professionals make negative comments about weight or accuse women of dishonesty when they discuss their dietary intake.

Sometimes weight stigma is implicit, or unintentional. Implicit weight stigma includes maternity care providers avoiding physical touch or eye contact during consultations with larger-bodied women.

Policies, guidelines and environments also contribute to weight stigma. Women in larger bodies frequently report feeling stigmatised and unable to access the type of maternity care they would prefer. Lack of availability of adequately fitting hospital clothing or delivery beds are other notable examples.

In a review published last year, we looked at weight stigma from preconception to after birth. Our results showed larger-bodied women are sometimes automatically treated as high-risk and undergo extra monitoring of their pregnancy even when they have no other risk factors that require monitoring.

This approach is problematic because it focuses on body size rather than health, placing responsibility on the woman and disregarding other complex determinants of health.

How does this make women feel?

Qualitative evidence shows women who experience weight stigma during their maternity care feel judged, devalued, shamed and less worthy. They may feel guilty about getting pregnant and experience self-doubt.

As one research participant explained:

One doctor told me I was terrible for getting pregnant at my weight, that I was setting up my baby to fail […] I was in tears, and he told me I was being too sensitive.

A 2023 Australian paper written by women who had experienced weight stigma in maternity care recounted their care as hyper-focused on weight and dehumanising, robbing them of the joy of pregnancy.

According to one woman, “there was no compassion or conversation, just blame”.

Beyond making women feel humiliated and disrespected, weight stigma in maternity care can affect mental health. For example, weight stigma is linked to increased risk of depressive symptoms and stress, disordered eating behaviours and emotional eating.

One of the key reasons why weight stigma is so damaging to pregnant women’s health is because it’s closely linked to body image concerns.

Society unfairly holds larger-bodied women up to unrealistic ideals around their body shape and size, their suitability to be a mother, and the control they have over their weight gain.

Self stigma occurs when women apply society’s stigmatising narrative – from people in the community, the media, peers, family members and health-care providers – to themselves.

Impacts on mum and baby

Several adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes have been linked to weight stigma in maternity care. These include gestational diabetes, caesarean birth and lower uptake of breastfeeding.

While we know these things can also be linked to higher body weight, emerging evidence shows weight stigma may have a stronger link with some outcomes than body mass index.

There are a variety of possible reasons for these links. For example, weight stigma may result in delayed access to and engagement with health-care services, and, as shown above, poorer mental health and reduced confidence. This may mean a woman is less likely to initiate and seek help with breastfeeding, for example.

Experiencing weight stigma also leads to a stress response in the body, which could affect a woman’s health during pregnancy.

In turn, the adverse effects of weight stigma can also affect the baby’s health. For example, gestational diabetes has a range of potential negative outcomes including a higher likelihood of premature birth, difficulties during birth, and an increased risk of the child developing type 2 diabetes.

But the burden and blame should not fall on women. Pregnant and postpartum women should not have to accept experiences of weight stigma in health care.

What can we do about it?

While it’s essential to address weight stigma as a societal issue, health services can play a key role in undoing the narrative of blame and shame and making maternity care more equitable for larger-bodied women.

Addressing weight stigma in maternity care can start with teaching midwives and obstetricians about weight stigma – what it is, where it happens, and how it can be minimised in practice.

We worked with women who had experienced weight stigma in maternity care and midwives to co-design resources to meet this need. Both women and midwives wanted resources that could be easily integrated into practice, acted as consistent reminders to be size-friendly, and met midwives’ knowledge gaps.

The resources included a short podcast about weight stigma in maternity care and images of healthy, larger-bodied pregnant women to demonstrate the most likely outcome is a healthy pregnancy. Midwives evaluated the resources positively and they are ready to be implemented into practice.

There is a long road to ending weight stigma in maternity care, but working towards this goal will benefit countless mothers and their babies.

Briony Hill receives funding from the Australian Research Council. Some research reported in this article was funded by the Australian Prevention Partnership Centre. The Australian Prevention Partnership Centre was supported through the NHMRC partnership centre grant scheme with the Australian Government Department of Health, ACT Health, Cancer Council Australia, NSW Ministry of Health, Wellbeing SA, Tasmanian Department of Health, and VicHealth. It is administered by the Sax Institute.

Haimanot Hailu does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. ‘No compassion… just blame’: how weight stigma in maternity care harms larger-bodied women and their babies – https://theconversation.com/no-compassion-just-blame-how-weight-stigma-in-maternity-care-harms-larger-bodied-women-and-their-babies-252725

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Magnus Söderberg, Professor & Director, Centre for Applied Energy Economics and Policy Research, Griffith University

In an otherwise unremarkable election campaign, the major parties are promising sharply different energy blueprints for Australia. Labor is pitching a high-renewables future powered largely by wind, solar, hydroelectricity and batteries. The Coalition wants more gas and coal now, and would build nuclear power later.

So how might these two competing visions play out as Australia goes to the polls this Saturday?

Research shows clear generational preferences when it comes to producing electricity. Younger Australians prefer renewables while older people favour coal and gas. The one exception is nuclear power, which is split much more on gender lines than age – 51% of Australian men support it, but just 26% of women.

While many voters are focused squarely on the cost of living, energy prices feed directly into how much everything costs. Research has shown that as power prices rise, the more likely it is an incumbent government will be turfed out.

Coal, renewables or nuclear?

About half of young Australians (18–34) want the country powered by renewables by 2030, according to a 2023 survey of energy consumers. Only 13% of the youngest (18–24) group think there’s no need to change or that it’s impossible. But resistance increases directly with age. From retirement age and up, 29% favour a renewable grid by 2030 while 44% think there’s no need or that it’s impossible.

On nuclear, the divide is less clear. The Coalition has promised to build Australia’s first nuclear reactors if elected, and Coalition leader Peter Dutton has claimed young people back nuclear. That’s based on a Newspoll survey showing almost two-thirds (65%) of Australians aged 18–34 supported nuclear power.

But other polls give a quite different story: 46% support for nuclear by younger Australians in an Essential poll compared to 56% support by older Australians. A Savanta poll put young support at just 36%.

There’s a gender component too. The demographic most opposed to nuclear are women over 55.

Younger voters remain strongly committed to environmental goals – but they’re also wary of cost blowouts and electricity price rises. Some see nuclear as a zero emissions technology able to help with the clean energy transition.

Older Australians are more likely to be sceptical of nuclear power. This is likely due to nuclear disasters such as Chernobyl as well as the prospect of nuclear war during the Cold War.

It’s an open question how robust support for nuclear would be if the Coalition was elected and began the long, expensive process of construction. New findings by the National Climate Action Survey shows almost 40% of Australians would be “extremely concerned” if a nuclear power plant was built within 50 kilometres of their homes and another 16% “very concerned”.

These energy preferences aren’t just found in Australia. In recent research my co-authors and I found a clear divide in Sweden: younger favour renewables and nuclear, older favour fossil fuels. Why the difference? Sweden already gets about 40% of its power from nuclear, while renewables now provide about 40% of Australia’s power.

We found younger Swedes strongly favoured renewables – but also supported nuclear power, especially when electricity prices rose. That is because nuclear is perceived to stabilise the supply of electricity. They wanted clean energy, as long as it was reliable and affordable. Our study found older people were not necessarily pro-fossil fuels, but were more focused on keeping energy affordable – especially for businesses and industry.

When electricity prices rose in Sweden, our survey respondents broadly became less concerned about climate change and more likely to be favourable to nuclear energy.

In Australia, the cost of the clean energy transition has crept up. While solar and wind offer cheap power once built, there are hidden costs.

If electricity prices keep rising, we should expect to see declining support for the clean energy transition.

Overcoming the energy divide

During Australia’s decade-long climate wars from roughly 2012 to 2022, climate change was heavily politicised and energy became a political football. Under a Coalition government in 2014, Australia became the first nation to abolish a carbon tax.

Labor took office in 2022 pledging to end the climate wars and fast-track the clean energy transition. But the Coalition has opened up a new divide on energy by proposing nuclear power by the 2040s and more gas and coal in the meantime.

This election, the cost of living is the single biggest issue for 25% of voters in the ABC’s Vote Compass poll. But climate change is still the main concern for about 8% of voters, energy for 4% and the environment 3.5%. Here, Coalition backing for fossil fuels and nuclear may attract some older and younger voters but repel others. Labor’s renewable transition may attract younger voters but lose older energy traditionalists.

Energy preferences could play out through a cost of living lens. Parties pushing too hard on green policies this election risk alienating older voters concerned about rising costs. But going nuclear would be very expensive, and keeping old coal plants going isn’t cheap. Downplaying climate action or dismissing nuclear outright could alienate some younger Australians, who are climate-conscious and energy-savvy.

Policymakers should resist framing energy as a zero-sum game. There is a path forward which can unite generations: coupling ambitious climate targets with pragmatic policies to protect consumers. Transitional supports such as energy rebates, time-of-use pricing or community-scale renewables and batteries can soften any economic impact while building public trust.

Our research suggests electricity price rises can quickly erode support even for well-designed energy policies.

As Australia navigates a complex and costly transition, keeping both younger and older generations on board may be the greatest political – and moral – challenge of all.

Magnus Söderberg does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Renewables, coal or nuclear? This election, your generation’s energy preference may play a surprising role – https://theconversation.com/renewables-coal-or-nuclear-this-election-your-generations-energy-preference-may-play-a-surprising-role-253832

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paula McDonald, Professor of Work and Organisation, Queensland University of Technology

US President Donald Trump declared earlier this year he would forge a “colour blind and merit-based society”.

His executive order was part of a broader policy directing the US military, federal agencies and other public institutions to abandon diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.

Framing this as restoring fairness, neutrality and strength to American institutions, Trump argued DEI programs “discourage merit and leadership” and amounted to “race-based and sex-based discrimination”.

In Australia too, debates over gender quotas and “the war on woke” have repeatedly invoked meritocracy as a rallying cry against affirmative action.

The narrative of rewards going to the most qualified people is compelling. Yet decades of research show this is flawed. Far from being the great equaliser, an uncritical reliance on “merit” can perpetuate bias and inequality.

The myths of meritocracy

The merit rhetoric invokes the ideal of a neutral, objective system rewarding talent and effort, regardless of identity.

In theory, merit-based evaluations such as exams, performance reviews, employee recruitment processes and competitive bids, should be impartial.

In practice however, there are several myths associated with the notion of merit.

1. Merit is purely objective or unbiased. In the employment context for example, studies show that even so-called objective and standardised cognitive or aptitude tests can systematically favour men due to the type of questions asked.

Decision-makers may unknowingly redefine merit to fit whoever already belongs to a favoured group. A study of elite law firms, for example, found male applicants were rated as more qualified than identical resumes from women.

This is known as “plasticity of merit”, meaning the criteria of excellence can bend to preference, all while appearing objective.

Supposedly merit-based judgments can reflect unconscious bias, or comfort with candidates who fit a traditional mould. Over time, preference may be given to a particular type of candidate irrespective of their actual contribution. Privilege and prejudice can be baked into merit-based evaluations.

2. Merit can be separated from social and historical context. Meritocracy or the so-called meritocratic promise assumes a level playing field, where everyone competes under the same conditions.

In reality however, past inequalities shape present opportunities. What counts as merit is dynamic and socially shaped, not an eternal universal standard.

For example, during the second world war there was a shortage of male workers. Qualities women brought to jobs previously held by men such as capacity for teamwork were suddenly deemed meritorious. But these same qualities were downgraded when the men returned.

Merit is often defined in masculine terms. For example, physicality or hyper-competitive traits have long been seen as prerequisites for military service and policing.

This alignment of masculine norms with standards of merit has been termed “benchmark man”.

Science careers too were built in an era when women were largely excluded. They were predicated on long-hours work and total availability – requirements that clash with caregiving responsibilities. The result is women in STEM careers leave or are pushed out.

3. Outcomes are the result of personal choice or deficiencies, not structural barriers. Meritocracy carries a moral narrative: those at the top earned their place while those left behind didn’t measure up or chose not to compete.

Research shows, for example, that when women don’t advance, it’s explained as lifestyle choices, or they lack ambition, or have opted out to prioritise caregiving.

This narrative wilfully overlooks the structural constraints impacting choices. When a woman “chooses” a lower-paying, flexible job, it may be less about preference than inadequate social supports.

By accepting unequal outcomes as the natural result of individual choices, institutions can conveniently obscure disadvantage and discrimination and erase responsibility to correct inequities.

How the merit mandate undermines equality

Trump’s vision is to remove equity initiatives and programs that monitor or encourage fair hiring and promotion, cease training that alerts employees to hidden biases, and fire or reassign DEI staff.

This is conceptually flawed and will actually entrench the very biases and barriers that have kept institutions unequal.

In the military, for example – an area highlighted by Trump – leaders have recognised they need to foster more inclusive cultures.

For years, defence forces have grappled with sexual harassment, recruitment shortfalls and retention of skilled personnel. In Australia, the Australian Defence Force undertook major reviews to identify violent and sexist subcultures, understanding a more inclusive force is a more effective force.

Yet Trump’s order bars the Pentagon from even acknowledging historical sexism in the ranks.

Favouring the in-group

Removing equity measures under a banner of neutrality means hiring and promotion will increasingly rely on informal networks and subjective judgements. These can tilt in favour of the in-group – usually white, male and affluent.

DEI initiatives can increase representation of women, or people from diverse racial or cultural backgrounds, in an organisation or occupational group.

However, without challenging the norms of merit, or without broadening the definitions of talent and leadership, people in those groups may continue to feel like outsiders.

Australian experts and business leaders increasingly acknowledge objective merit is mythical.

Redefining merit

Fair rewards for effort can improve performance. However, we need to stop pitting merit against diversity. True fairness requires acknowledgement structural inequality exists and bias affects evaluations.

Organisations need to re-imagine merit in ways that work with inclusion, rather than against it. This includes refining hiring and promotion criteria to focus on competencies that are measurable and relevant.

Paula McDonald currently receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Trump says diversity initiatives undermine merit. Decades of research show this is flawed – https://theconversation.com/trump-says-diversity-initiatives-undermine-merit-decades-of-research-show-this-is-flawed-255100

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matt Garrow, Editorial Web Developer

This federal election, both major parties have offered a “grab bag” of policy fixes for Australia’s stubborn housing affordability crisis. But there are still two big policy elephants in the room, which neither side wants to touch.

The first is negative gearing. This can apply to business losses relating to any investment. But in the context of housing, it allows property investors to claim annual losses incurred renting out an investment property as deductions against their taxable income.

Proponents argue this boosts the supply of rental housing by encouraging investment. Critics say it’s an unfair tax break that disproportionately benefits the wealthy while driving up house prices.

This situation has been controversial for a long time. The Hawke government tried to implement major reforms in the 1980s but these were reversed soon afterwards.

The second “elephant”, which some economists argue “put a rocket under” housing prices, is the 50% capital gains tax discount for assets held for longer than a year. This was introduced by the Howard government at the turn of the millennium.

In 2019, the then Labor leader Bill Shorten learned the hard way what can happen when you bring negative gearing and capital gains tax reform to an election as part of a “big target” platform. Yet these tax concessions remain highly contentious.

Whom do they benefit most? Are they behind the housing crisis? Is keeping them fair on the rest of us? We invited four experts to unpack this debate. Here are the elements they told us are most crucial:

Digital Storytelling Team does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Housing affordability is at the centre of this election, yet two major reforms seem all but off-limits – https://theconversation.com/housing-affordability-is-at-the-centre-of-this-election-yet-two-major-reforms-seem-all-but-off-limits-241262

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Scarlette Nhi Do, Sessional Academic, The University of Melbourne

The Vietnam War (1955–1975) was more than just a chapter in the Cold War.

For some, it was supposed to achieve Vietnam’s right to self-determination. For others, it was an attempt to found a nation-state independent of both capitalist and communist influences.

In the 50 years since the war ended, the stories we’ve heard about it have struggled to convey these many different views. Cinema – in Hollywood and in Vietnam – offers some insight into this struggle, which we continue to face today.

A war by any other name

The war is known by many names, and each one highlights the different objectives of the forces involved.

For the United States, “The Vietnam War” was one battleground against the Soviet Union during the Cold War. To prevent communism from spreading, the US sent resources to establish the Republic of Vietnam (known informally as South Vietnam) as its proxy. It had already used this strategy with West Germany and South Korea.

The Communist Party of Vietnam thought of US involvement as a form of colonialism.

By calling the conflict “the sacred resistance against the US to salvage the country” (Cuộc Kháng Chiến Chống Mỹ, Cứu Nước), or “the American war” (Chiến Tranh Mỹ) for short, the communist party encouraged the perception of the war as a stepping stone towards Vietnam’s full independence following Chinese imperialism (circa 111 BCE–939 CE), French colonialism (1862–1954) and Japanese occupation (1940-45).

The communist objective was to “liberate” South Vietnam from the US and its puppet administration, and reunify the country. This is why, in Vietnam, April 30 is called “Reunification Day” or “Independence Day”, to commemorate the communists’ victory in capturing Saigon.

However, former citizens of South Vietnam call April 30 the “Day of National Mourning” (Ngày Quốc Hận), as it marks the Republic’s defeat and the beginning of decades of political persecution and refugee displacement. Although the South Vietnamese were pluralistic in their political beliefs, they were united in their anti-communism.

For them, the conflict was “the Civil War” (Nội Chiến), fought between communists and anti-communists over the future of Vietnam. After the Republic fell, many grieved (and still do) the vision of what South Vietnam could have become.

Apocalypse then

While the US eventually lost control over South Vietnam, it continued to influence how Vietnam was thought of in the West through Hollywood.

In the 1970-80s, Vietnam War films such as Francis Ford Coppola’s Apocalypse Now (1979), Stanley Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket (1987) and Oliver Stone’s Platoon (1987) established these directors as household names.

The films focus on US soldiers’ psyche and discontent with incompetent leadership, pushing the Vietnamese people and their struggles for independence into the background. They frame the war as something done to American society, rather than something the US orchestrated.

This victimhood fostered what became known as “the Vietnam syndrome” – an unofficial condition in American mindset characterised by feelings of woundedness and a loss of trust in the capability of the US.

In Vietnam, early communist-controlled cinema in the north depicted the Vietnamese as an oppressed people who must band together to defeat Western corruption. Wartime films such as Along the Same River (1959) and 17th Parallel, Days and Nights (1972) leaned into melodramatic love stories to allegorise the divided Vietnam as separated lovers who must be reunited.

As directors in the north slowly gained some freedom from the communist party, films increasingly dealt with the war’s immense impact and questioned the party’s ability to bring about the classless society it had promised. The Girl on the River (1987) and Living in Fear (2005) are two good examples.

Meanwhile, filmmakers in the south were independents who occasionally collaborated with the state or military, as seen with the classic 1971 film Faceless Lover (also known as Warrior, Who Are You?).

South Vietnamese people saw film as a medium to negotiate their fledgling national identity. For them, it was important to establish and safekeep an identity that was distinct from the “foreign ally” (the US) and the “domestic foe” (the communists).

This is why films from the south often portrayed love triangles, where the hero must choose between the vessels of modern Vietnamese femininity and Western excess. Some examples include Afternoon Sun (1972) and Late Night’s Dew (1972).

Apocalypse now

New perspectives on the war are emerging as historically marginalised groups gain footing in Western media. And some of these challenge early portrayals.

Spike Lee’s Da 5 Bloods (2020) was the first major production to show the war through Black American veterans’ eyes. Hollywood neglected to do this, despite the over-representation of Black soldiers in conscription, combat and casualties during wartime.

Although Da 5 Bloods still fails to account for the Vietnamese’s fight for self-determination, it acknowledges Black Americans’ and the Vietnamese people’s mutual suffering under white supremacy.

One independent feature from a son of refugees, Journey from the Fall (2006), conveys the resentment many exiled South Vietnamese people feel towards the communist party. It also explores the trauma of leaving Vietnam by boat and resettlement in the US.

Most recently, the 2024 TV series The Sympathizer, adapted from Viet Thanh Nguyen’s novel, moved the needle by probing at complex issues such as wartime loyalty, complicity and authenticity.

Communist narratives persist

In Vietnam today, the scale of communist party-funded movies has grown immensely, with many films resembling Hollywood blockbusters. But the messages have become more conservative.

Films such as The Scent of Burning Grass (2012) and The Legend Makers (2013) continue to support the communist party narrative by omitting South Vietnam’s anti-communist objective. They also undermine women’s contributions to the war efforts, whereas earlier films put women at the centre of community organisation.

A new generation of filmmakers is challenging these narratives through collaboration with international production companies and distributors. Features such as Viet and Nam (2024) experiment with film form to show the true costs of war, including the widening wealth disparity in Vietnam, and the lengths many would go to close this gap.

Scarlette Nhi Do does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. The Vietnam War ended 50 years ago today, yet films about the conflict still struggle to capture its complexities – https://theconversation.com/the-vietnam-war-ended-50-years-ago-today-yet-films-about-the-conflict-still-struggle-to-capture-its-complexities-253837

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mehdi Seyedmahmoudian, Professor of Electrical Engineering, School of Engineering, Swinburne University of Technology

The lights are mostly back on in Spain, Portugal and southern France after a widespread blackout on Monday.

The blackout caused chaos for tens of millions of people. It shut down traffic lights and ATMs, halted public transport, cut phone service and forced people to eat dinner huddled around candles as night fell. Many people found themselves trapped in trains and elevators.

Spain’s prime minister, Pedro Sánchez, has said the exact cause of the blackout is yet to be determined. In early reporting, Portugal’s grid operator REN was quoted as blaming the event on a rare phenomenon known as “induced atmospheric vibration”. REN has since reportedly refuted this.

But what is this vibration? And how can energy systems be improved to mitigate the risk of widespread blackouts?

How much does weather affect electricity?

Weather is a major cause of disruptions to electricity supply. In fact, in the United States, 83% of reported blackouts between 2000 and 2021 were attributed to weather-related events.

The ways weather can affect the supply of electricity are manifold. For example, cyclones can bring down transmission lines, heatwaves can place too high a demand on the grid, and bushfires can raze substations.

Wind can also cause transmission lines to vibrate. These vibrations are characterised by either high amplitude and low frequency (known as “conductor galloping”), or low amplitude and high frequency (known as “aeolian vibrations”).

These vibrations are a significant problem for grid operators. They can place increased stress on grid infrastructure, potentially leading to blackouts.

To reduce the risk of vibration, grid operators often use wire stabilisers known as “stock bridge dampers”.

What is ‘induced atmospheric vibration’?

Vibrations in power lines can also be caused by extreme changes in temperature or air pressure. And this is one hypothesis about what caused the recent widespread blackout across the Iberian peninsula.

As The Guardian initially reported Portugal’s REN as saying:

Due to extreme temperature variations in the interior of Spain, there were anomalous oscillations in the very high voltage lines (400 kV), a phenomenon known as “induced atmospheric vibration”. These oscillations caused synchronisation failures between the electrical systems, leading to successive disturbances across the interconnected European network.

In fact, “induced atmospheric vibration” is not a commonly used term, but it seems likely the explanation was intended to refer to physical processes climate scientists have known about for quite some time.

In simple terms, it seems to refer to wavelike movements or oscillations in the atmosphere, caused by sudden changes in temperature or pressure. These can be triggered by extreme heating, large-scale energy releases (such as explosions or bushfires), or intense weather events.

When a part of Earth’s surface heats up very quickly – due to a heatwave, for example – the air above it warms, expands and becomes lighter. That rising warm air creates a pressure imbalance with the surrounding cooler, denser air. The atmosphere responds to this imbalance by generating waves, not unlike ripples spreading across a pond.

These pressure waves can travel through the atmosphere. In some cases, they can interact with power infrastructure — particularly long-distance, high-voltage transmission lines.

These types of atmospheric waves are usually called gravity waves, thermal oscillations or acoustic-gravity waves. While the phrase “induced atmospheric vibration” is not formally established in meteorology, it seems to describe this same family of phenomena.

What’s important is that it’s not just high temperatures alone that causes these effects — it’s how quickly and unevenly the temperature changes across a region. That’s what sets the atmosphere into motion and can cause power lines to vibrate. Again, though, it’s still unclear if this is what was behind the recent blackout in Europe.

More centralised, more vulnerable

Understanding how the atmosphere behaves under these conditions is becoming increasingly important. As our energy systems become more interconnected and more dependent on long-distance transmission, even relatively subtle atmospheric disturbances can have outsized impacts. What might once have seemed like a fringe effect is now a growing factor in grid resilience.

Under growing environmental and electrical stress, centralised energy networks are dangerously vulnerable. The increasing electrification of buildings, the rapid uptake of electric vehicles, and the integration of intermittent renewable energy sources have placed unprecedented pressure on traditional grids that were never designed for this level of complexity, dynamism or centralisation.

Continuing to rely on centralised grid structures without fundamentally rethinking resilience puts entire regions at risk — not just from technical faults, but from environmental volatility.

The way to avoid such catastrophic risks is clear: we must embrace innovative solutions such as community microgrids. These are decentralised, flexible and resilient energy networks that can operate independently when needed.

Strengthening local energy autonomy is key to building a secure, affordable and future-ready electricity system.

The European blackout, regardless of its immediate cause, demonstrates that our electrical grids have become dangerously sensitive. Failure to address these structural weaknesses will have consequences far worse than those experienced during the COVID pandemic.

Mehdi Seyedmahmoudian does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Did ‘induced atmospheric vibration’ cause blackouts in Europe? An electrical engineer explains the phenomenon – https://theconversation.com/did-induced-atmospheric-vibration-cause-blackouts-in-europe-an-electrical-engineer-explains-the-phenomenon-255497

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Amin Saikal, Emeritus Professor of Middle Eastern and Central Asian Studies, Australian National University; and Vice Chancellor’s Strategic Fellow, Victoria University

India and Pakistan are once again at a standoff over Kashmir. A terror attack last week in the disputed region that killed 26 tourists – mostly Indian – has brought the two nuclear-armed South Asian rivals close to a devastating conflict.

India claims the incident was an act of cross-border terrorism supported by Pakistan and has vowed to hunt down and punish the perpetrators. In retaliation, it has suspended the Indus Waters Treaty to deprive Pakistan of water from the Indus River, which runs through the Indian-controlled region of Jammu and Kashmir.

Pakistan has condemned India’s action as an “act of war”.

Both sides have put their forces on alert as low-level clashes have broken out along the “Line of Control”, the de facto border established in the region following the first Indo-Pakistan war in 1947–48.

Pakistan’s defence minister now says a “military incursion” by India is imminent. Can all-out war between the two sides be averted?

A long-simmering dispute

At the time of the painful partition of British India in the 1940s, the country’s Muslim minority were given the option of joining the newly created state of Pakistan. Kashmir’s Hindu ruler initially wanted independence for the region, but in fear of invaders from Pakistan, decided to join India.

This laid the foundations for an enduring, bitter dispute over control of the Muslim-majority region. Attempts at a resolution have been hard to come by.

The dispute has also become intrinsically linked to the political and strategic postures of the two protagonists.

New Delhi has vehemently opposed any nationalist demands for independence in Jammu and Kashmir. It fears this would set a precedent for many other minorities who want autonomy in multi-ethnic India.

Initially, the region was given a special autonomous status under Article 370 of the Indian constitution. But since 2014, the ruling Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) under Prime Minister Narendra Modi has forcefully sought to bring Jammu and Kashmir under New Delhi’s control.

In 2019, it revoked Article 370 and isolated the region from the rest of India and the outside world.

Modi’s government argued this was necessary to bring progress and prosperity to the people of Jammu and Kashmir. In reality, it was aimed at squashing separatist movements and easing the way for more Hindus to move to the territory.

Pakistan condemned the scrapping of Article 370, exacerbating the tensions between the two regional powers.

New Delhi has also accused Pakistan of involvement in cross-border terrorist acts over the years. Islamabad has refuted New Delhi’s claims and castigated it for human rights violations in Jammu and Kashmir and for denying the people their right to self-determination.

Nuclear deterrence has been effective

India and Pakistan fought two wars in 1965 and 1971, the latter resulting in the dismemberment of Pakistan and creation of the state of Bangladesh.

In 1999, the two rivals came very close to a nuclear exchange in the limited Kargil War in Kashmir, but pulled back from the brink. As I wrote at the time, the consequences of a nuclear war played a crucial role in both sides eventually backing down.

This is also the main reason the protagonists have not fought another all-out war in five decades, notwithstanding periodic clashes along the Line of Control and the Kargil conflict. And nuclear deterrence may once more prove effective in preventing the two sides from escalating the current conflict.

Pakistan is also going through a very politically, economically and socially fragile period in its history.

The country has been in political turmoil since the ousting and arrest of popular Prime Minister Imran Khan in 2023. The economy is in the doldrums. And the government faces a renewed threat from the Pakistani Taliban, amid growing tensions between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The main force holding Pakistan together is the military and the powerful Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency.

India is facing its own challenges, despite being in a more stable position. The Modi government’s Hindu nationalism has marginalised minority groups, in particular the country’s Muslim population. And income inequality is growing, with the richest 1% of the country holding 58% of the wealth.

Neither country can afford a war right now – particularly one with potentially catastrophic consequences.

Amin Saikal does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. India and Pakistan are on war footing. Can they be brought back from the brink? – https://theconversation.com/india-and-pakistan-are-on-war-footing-can-they-be-brought-back-from-the-brink-255504

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Barry Barton, Professor of Law, University of Waikato

Newly released documents add more detail to the government’s plans for a regulatory framework to enable carbon capture and storage.

But they show indecision on two key matters – the legal framework and the agency that would be in charge.

The plan relates primarily to conventional carbon capture and storage technologies, which remove carbon dioxide from an industrial gas flow and dispose of it deep underground.

It also covers some methods of carbon dioxide removal, an emerging but as yet commercially untested suite of technologies such as enhanced rock weathering, bio-energy capture and direct air capture.

The latter technologies are not predicated on fossil fuel consumption and could operate in many different situations.

Neither kind of carbon removal is a simple answer to the climate challenge and the priority remains on cutting emissions. But we need to have regulatory frameworks in place for both reduction and removal technologies of all kinds, and soon.

Earning credits from emissions trading

Both types of technologies will benefit from the government’s decision to allow companies to get credits in the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) for the disposal of carbon dioxide from any source. Credits will not be tied to any one technology, according to the released policy discussion documents.

It’s also a positive development that an operator can get credits as a separate removal activity, not merely as a reduction of an existing emissions liability (although official advice was initially against separate credits). This allows for diversity in the players and the systems for removals.

The government has decided it will assume liability for any carbon dioxide leaks from geological storage, but only after verification that fluids in the subsurface are behaving as expected after closure, and no sooner than 15 years after closure.

Leaks this long after injection are unlikely, but we nevertheless need strong regulation, financial assurance to guarantee remedial action and clear liability rules.

The government also states ETS credits will only be available for removals that can be recognised internationally against New Zealand’s commitments to cut emissions. This would apply only to geological storage but not deep-ocean deposition or rock weathering.

But that’s not quite right. The general international rules already allow the inclusion in a national greenhouse gas inventory of removals from any process. Detailed methodologies for carbon dioxide removal are likely to become available within the next few years.

With change underway, New Zealand’s new regime should allow a wide range of removal methods to receive credits.

A new regulatory regime

The documents acknowledge that New Zealand needs a broader regulatory regime, beyond the ETS, to cover the entire process of carbon dioxide removal. The suitability of a disposal site must be verified, a detailed geological characterisation is required and the project design and operation need to be approved.

Approval is also required for closure and post-closure plans, and systematic monitoring. Monitoring is everything; it must be accurate and verifiable but also cost effective. The operator will have to pay for monitoring for decades after site closure.

In agreeing on these features, the government is following the examples of many countries overseas, including Australia, Canada, the UK and the EU.

However, it is intriguing that the government hasn’t decided where this new regime should sit in the statute book, and who should manage it. Much of the apparently relevant text in the documents has been redacted.

Given that carbon dioxide would be stored underground, the Crown Minerals Act is one possibility. But this legislation is all about extraction, not disposal. Although the New Zealand petroleum and minerals unit at the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment has expertise in regulating subsurface operations, it focuses largely on oil and gas, not on innovative climate projects.

The Resource Management Act certainly provides a regulatory approval regime, but it is awaiting reform and would need much more than the currently proposed changes to deal with carbon capture and storage or removal properly. So would legislation covering activities within New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone.

Indeed each act would require a whole new part to be added, with its own principles and procedures. There is a lot to be said for a standalone new act, in a form that would fit with the emerging Natural Environment Act that will replace the Resource Management Act.

The new legislation and regulation regime could be administered by the Environmental Protection Authority, which is already involved in Resource Management Act call-ins and fast-track approvals, the legislation covering the exclusive economic zone and the ETS.

One can only guess there might be tensions between contending factions in government. What we should ask for is a legislative and institutional arrangement that allows carbon capture and storage or removal technologies to evolve and grow without being a mere offshoot of the oil and gas industry or any other existing sector.

As part of our efforts to reduce emissions, we must make sure all kinds of removal technologies are available that truly suit New Zealand.

Barry Barton is part of the project “Derisking Carbon Dioxide Removal at Megatonne Scale in Aotearoa” which is funded by the MBIE’s Endeavour Fund. In the past, he has received funding from MBIE and the gas industry for research on CCS legal issues.
He is a director of the Environmental Defence Society.

– ref. The government plans to regulate carbon capture technologies – but who will be the regulating agency? – https://theconversation.com/the-government-plans-to-regulate-carbon-capture-technologies-but-who-will-be-the-regulating-agency-254696

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Fiona MacDonald, Associate Professor, Political Science, University of Northern British Columbia

Canada’s 2025 federal election will be remembered as a game-changer. Liberal Leader Mark Carney is projected to have pulled off a dramatic reversal of political fortunes after convincing voters he was the best candidate to fight annexation threats from United States President Donald Trump.

Only four months ago, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre had a 25-point lead in public opinion polls and a fairly secure path to victory.

Yet Poilievre’s lead soon vanished due to shifting voter sentiments defined less by the official campaign period and more by the months that preceded it. Justin Trudeau’s early January resignation announcement and Carney’s confirmation that he was officially in the Liberal leadership race dramatically changed the political landscape.

Read more:
After stunning comeback, centre-left Liberals likely to win majority of seats at Canadian election

Within a matter of weeks, Liberal support surged when Carney became party leader and Trump continued to make threats about Canada becoming a 51st American state — and to levy punishing on-again, off-again tariffs against the country.

The party went from being 20 percentage points behind the Conservatives to overtaking them, putting the party on track to secure its fourth consecutive victory. A shift described by longtime pollster Frank Graves as “unprecedented.”

Poilievre’s messaging

The emerging “Canada strong” and “elbows up” narratives, linked to the widespread anti-Trump sentiment, proved a major advantage for the Liberals, who made the most out of this political gift.

This shift, alongside Carney’s elimination of the carbon tax, left Poilievre on the back foot as his longstanding messaging on Trudeau and his “axe the tax” slogan became largely irrelevant.

Read more:
Who really killed Canada’s carbon tax? Friends and foes alike

The impact of these shifts in electoral fortunes extended beyond the two main parties. As the election became increasingly a two-party race between the Liberals and Conservatives, the smaller parties struggled for relevance.

Election campaign polling and early results indicated steep losses for the NDP, with Leader Jagmeet Singh’s own seat in Burnaby, B.C., under threat. This could be due to voters on the left responding to calls to vote strategically to prevent Conservative victories in various ridings.

The Bloc Québecois also lost ground, as did the Green Party of Canada and the People’s Party of Canada (PPC). Neither the Greens nor the PPC fielded full slates of candidates or participated in the leaders’ debates and therefore played comparatively limited roles in this election.

Advance voting in a gendered election

Another notable feature of this election was the record advance voting turnout, which surged to 7.3 million Canadians, up sharply from 5.8 million in 2021.

Early voting has now become a central part of party campaign strategy, with campaigns “getting out the vote” at every opportunity, not just on Election Day. This trend raises questions not only about whether overall turnout will rise, but also whether party platforms remain as influential given so many votes were cast before all parties released their platforms.

While many Canadians take in elections with a focus on party leaders and seat counts, there are other important ways to contemplate election outcomes in terms of inclusion and voice. What does this election tell us about gender and diversity representation in Canada’s Parliament?

This was a deeply gendered election. The major party leaders are all men, with the exception of Elizabeth May, the Green Party co-leader.

Preliminary candidate data showed a decrease in the number of women candidates compared to 2021.

The NDP nominated the highest proportion of women candidates — the majority of its candidates are women — and fielded the most diverse slate of candidates in terms of Indigenous people, Black people, racialized people and LGBTQ+ candidates. But the party’s dramatic losses mean these gains will not translate into more diverse representation in Parliament.

Furthermore, one of Carney’s first actions as prime minister was to eliminate the sex-balanced cabinet and to reduce the size of the cabinet. He eliminated the Ministry of Women and Gender Equality (WAGE) as well as ministerial portfolios focused on youth, official languages, diversity, inclusion, disability and seniors.

These decisions reverse previous efforts taken to institutionalize gender and diversity leadership in Canada’s Parliament.

Party platforms also reflected diverging approaches when it came to women. The Conservative platform only mentioned women four times, and three of those mentions were in the context of opposition to transgender rights.

Read more:
Pierre Poilievre’s ‘More Boots, Less Suits’ election strategy held little appeal to women

The role of young working-class men

Polling also revealed intersections of generation, gender and class are increasingly relevant. Like the last federal election, young working-class men are increasingly drawn to the Conservatives. This trend appears to be driven less by fiscal conservatism and more by concerns about rapid social change, a trend also observed in the 2024 American presidential election.

Many of these young men are expressing frustrations over housing affordability and job security, and what they view as the Liberal and NDP’s “woke culture,” which they view as eroding traditional values that have traditionally benefited men. In contrast, Canadian women of all ages continue to favour parties they view as more progressive — the Liberals and the NDP.

Theoretical explanations for this include young men feeling left behind by the Liberals, while the Conservatives have seemingly figured out a way to connect with them.

This may reflect campaign rhetoric about returning to traditional expectations and values around gender roles and men’s rights to well-paying jobs, an affordable home and taking care of their families.

Electoral reform needed?

In the aftermath of the election, there are avenues through which current gaps in representation can be addressed. Organizations like the United Nations’ Inter-parliamentary Union and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, as well as gender and politics scholarship, propose various reforms to continue to strengthen diversity in Parliament.

These reforms are understood to be essential for enhancing the legitimacy, responsiveness and effectiveness of Canada’s parliamentary system. Research on gender-and diversity-sensitive parliaments consistently shows that when legislative bodies reflect the diversity of the societies they govern, they are more likely to produce policies that are equitable, inclusive and trusted by the public.

Overall, this Canadian election was characterized by transformative twists and turns that shed more light on important ongoing questions about representation and the potential need for democratic reform if Canadians want to avoid a two-party system.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Game change Canadian election: Mark Carney projected to have lead Liberals to their fourth consecutive win – https://theconversation.com/game-change-canadian-election-mark-carney-projected-to-have-lead-liberals-to-their-fourth-consecutive-win-253721

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tegan Cohen, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Digital Media Research Centre, Queensland University of Technology

Another election, another wave of unsolicited political texts. Over this campaign, our digital mailboxes have been stuffed with a slew of political appeals and promises, many from the new party Trumpet of Patriots (backed by Clive Palmer, a veteran of the mass text campaign).

The practice isn’t new, and it’s totally legal under current laws. It’s also non-partisan. Campaigns of all stripes have partaken. Behold, the Liberal Party’s last-minute SMS to voters about asylum seekers before the 2022 federal election, or Labor’s controversial “Mediscare” text before the 2016 poll. Despite multiple cycles of criticism, these tactics remain a persistent feature of Australian election campaigns.

A recent proposal to update decades-old rules could help change things – if a government would put it into practice.

What does the law say about political spam?

Several laws regulate spam and data collection in Australia.

First, there is the Spam Act. This legislation requires that organisations obtain our consent before sending us marketing emails, SMSs and instant messages. The unsubscribe links you see at the bottom of spam emails? Those are mandated by the Spam Act.

Second, the Do Not Call Register (DNCR) Act. This Act establishes a “do not call” register, managed by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), which individuals can join to opt out of telemarketing calls.

Finally, there is the Privacy Act, which governs how organisations collect, use and disclose our personal information. Among other things, the Privacy Act requires that organisations tell us when and why they are collecting our personal information, and the purposes for which they intend to use it. It restricts organisations from re-purposing personal information collected for a particular purpose, unless an exception applies.

This trio of laws was designed to offer relief from unsolicited, unwanted direct marketing. It does not, however, stop the deluge of political spam at election time due to broad political exemptions sewn into the legislation decades ago.

The Spam Act and DNCR Act apply to marketing for goods and services but not election policies and promises, while the Privacy Act contains a carve-out for political parties, representatives and their contractors.

The upshot is that their campaigns are free to spam and target voters at will. Their only obligation is to disclose who authorised the message.

How do political campaigns get our information?

Secrecy about the nature and extent of campaign data operations, enabled by the exemptions, makes it difficult to pinpoint precisely where a campaign might have obtained your data from.

There are, however, a number of ways political campaigns can acquire our information.

One source is the electoral roll (though not for phone numbers, as the Australian Electoral Commission often points out). Incumbent candidates might build on this with information they obtain through contact with constituents which, thanks to the exemptions, they’re allowed to re-purpose for campaigning at election time.

Another source is data brokers – firms which harvest, analyse and sell large quantities of data and profiles.

We know the major parties have long maintained voter databases to support their targeting efforts, which have become increasingly sophisticated over the years.

Other outfits might take more haphazard approaches – former MP Craig Kelly, for example, claimed to use software to randomly generate numbers for his texting campaign in 2021.

What can be done?

Unwanted campaign texts are not only irritating to some. They can be misleading.

This year, there have been reports of “push polling” texts (pseudo surveys meant to persuade rather than gauge voter options) in the marginal seat of Kooyong. The AEC has warned about misleading postal vote applications being issued by parties via SMS.

Generative AI is hastening the ability to produce misleading content, cheaply and at scale, which can be quickly pushed out across an array of online social and instant messaging services.

In short, annoying texts are just one visible symptom of a wider vulnerability created by the political exemptions.

The basic argument for the political exemptions is to facilitate freedom of political communication, which is protected by the Constitution. As the High Court has said, that freedom is necessary to support informed electoral choice. It does not, however, guarantee speakers a captive audience.

In 2022, the Attorney-General’s Department proposed narrowing the political exemptions, as part of a suite of updates to the Privacy Act. Per the proposal, parties and representatives would need to be more transparent about their data operations, provide voters with an option to unsubscribe from targeted ads, refrain from targeting voters based on “sensitive information”, and handle data in a “fair and reasonable” manner.

The changes would be an overdue but welcome step, recognising the essential role of voter privacy in a functioning democratic system.

Unfortunately, the government has not committed to taking up the proposal.

A bipartisan lack of support is likely the biggest obstacle, even as the gap created by the political exemptions widens, and its rationale becomes flimsier, with each election cycle.

Tegan Cohen has received funding from the Australian Research Council (FT210100263). She has volunteered for not-for-profit groups and parties, including the Wilderness Society and the Australian Greens.

– ref. Why are political parties allowed to send spam texts? And how can we make them stop? – https://theconversation.com/why-are-political-parties-allowed-to-send-spam-texts-and-how-can-we-make-them-stop-255413

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paul Crosby, Senior Lecturer, Department of Economics, Macquarie University

The Oscars have entered the age of artificial intelligence (AI). Last week the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences explicitly said, for the first time, films using generative AI tools will not be disqualified from the awards.

It’s a timely decision. As generative AI becomes more integrated into filmmaking, debates over creativity and authorship are intensifying. Writers’ strikes and fears of artistic displacement have dominated recent industry discussions.

But how do audiences feel about the use of AI in films? Our research suggests they may be more open to it than the industry might expect.

What the new rules say

The updated Oscars guidelines make it clear the use of generative AI will neither help, nor hinder, a film’s chances of nomination.

What matters is the degree to which people remain at the centre of the creative process. While AI tools can be part of the workflow, the judges will scrutinise the standard of human creative authorship in a given work.

This reflects broader shifts taking place in the film industry. AI tools are now embedded in many stages of production, including for high-profile and award-nominated films.

At this year’s Oscars, Adrien Brody won best actor for his performance in The Brutalist, which used generative AI to enhance the actor’s Hungarian dialogue. Emilia Pérez – the most nominated film, with 13 nods – also used AI-powered voice cloning in post-production.

The Oscars update isn’t introducing AI to Hollywood. It’s simply acknowledging the extent to which it is already in use.

Do audiences mind?

To understand how audiences respond to AI’s creative role in film, we conducted an experiment testing people’s reactions to AI-generated film ideas.

For our study, published in the Journal of Cultural Economics, we asked 500 US-based participants to rate AI-generated film “pitches” in terms of their anticipated enjoyment and likelihood of watching the film across different formats (such as cinema, online rental, or streaming).

Half of the participants were explicitly told the ideas were generated by AI, while the other half were not. Each AI-generated pitch included a synopsis, director, top-billed cast, genre, rating and runtime.

The results were clear. There was no systematic bias against AI-generated pitches. Ratings of anticipated enjoyment and likelihood of watching the films were broadly similar, regardless of whether the participants knew AI was involved.

AI-assisted versus AI-produced

It’s important to note our research focused on audience reactions to ideas – the initial pitch for a film – and not the final product. This distinction matters.

AI’s role was limited in our experiment. Human directors and cast members were implicitly part of each pitch, and there was no suggestion AI had written the full screenplay or contributed in other ways to the production of the final film.

As we note in our paper, AI’s limited involvement likely shaped participants’ responses. There was an implicit understanding that human creativity would remain central to the final product.

This aligns with broader evidence from other creative sectors. In the case of music and visual art, audiences tend to respond less favourably when they believe a work has been fully AI-generated.

Together, these findings suggest the middle ground may be the best approach. While audiences may be accepting of AI’s contribution to creative tasks such as idea generation, editing, and visual and audio effects, they still value human authorship and authenticity in the final product.

That is also the balance the Academy Awards seems to be aiming for. The new rules do not disqualify films for using AI. However, they emphasise that awards will go to works where humans remain at the heart of the creative process. For now, audiences appear to be comfortable with that approach, too.

What it means for the industry

Generative tools are becoming part of the mainstream production toolkit. And this raises important questions about creative labour, credit and compensation.

While our research suggests audiences may be open to AI-generated content, this doesn’t mean the industry can move forward without careful deliberation. The question is no longer whether AI will shape the future of film, but how – and who gets to decide the terms.

If AI is to complement, rather than diminish, the filmmaking process, it will be important to maintain clear standards and ethical guidelines around AI use, as well as a clear role for human authorship.

This includes transparency around how AI tools are used, and appropriate recognition for creative contributions – including for those whose work has been used to train generative AI systems.

The real test will be whether the industry can embrace AI without losing sight of the creative values that define it.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. The Oscars have rolled out the red carpet for generative AI. And surprisingly, viewers don’t seem to mind – https://theconversation.com/the-oscars-have-rolled-out-the-red-carpet-for-generative-ai-and-surprisingly-viewers-dont-seem-to-mind-255120

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sue Hand, Professor Emeritus, Palaeontology, UNSW Sydney

As the world’s only surviving egg-laying mammals, Australasia’s platypus and four echidna species are among the most extraordinary animals on Earth.

They are also very different from each other.

The platypus is well adapted for a semi-aquatic lifestyle, spending up to 20 hours a day swimming in Australian waterways to forage for freshwater invertebrates. Echidnas, on the other hand, live entirely on land. They are widely distributed across Australia and New Guinea, and adapted for feeding on termites, ants and earthworms.

How did these differences emerge? Some researchers think echidnas evolved from a swimming, platypus-like ancestor. This hypothesis is based on evidence from aspects of their genes and anatomy, and from hypotheses about their evolutionary history.

However, this idea is controversial because fossil evidence for such a profound evolutionary transformation has been lacking – until now.

A bone from 108 million years ago

In our study published today in PNAS, we gleaned new data from a 108-million-year-old mammal humerus (arm bone), found 30 years ago at Dinosaur Cove, Victoria, by a team from Museums Victoria.

This arm bone, from a species called Kryoryctes cadburyi, belongs to an ancestral monotreme – a semi-aquatic burrower like the platypus. Our findings support the hypothesis that land-living echidnas evolved from a swimming ancestor.

Kryoryctes lived during the Age of Dinosaurs (the Mesozoic), when monotremes and monotreme relatives were more common than they are today. Glimpses of this past diversity are found in the fossil record in southern Victoria and Lightning Ridge, New South Wales.

Nevertheless, Australian Mesozoic mammal fossils are exceedingly rare, and mostly consist of teeth and jaws. Kryoryctes is the only one known from a limb bone, which provides significant information about its identity, relationships and lifestyle.

Tiny clues inside bones

In order to test the evolutionary relationships of Kryoryctes, we added it to a broader data set of 70 fossil and modern mammals. From there, we calculated an evolutionary tree. This showed Kryoryctes is an ancestral monotreme.

We also compared the external shape of the Kryroryctes humerus bone to living monotremes. These analyses indicated the bone is more like those of echidnas, rather than platypuses.

But it was a different story on the inside. When we looked at the internal structure of the Kryoryctes humerus with several 3D scanning techniques, we uncovered microscopic features of this arm bone that were actually more like those of the platypus.

Such tiny features inside bones yield crucial clues about the lifestyle of an animal. Numerous previous studies link bone microstructure in mammals and other tetrapods (four-limbed animals) with their ecology.

Using the wealth of data available for living mammals, we compared characteristics of the Kryoryctes humerus microstructure to those in platypuses, echidnas and 74 other mammal species.

These analyses confirmed that the Kryoryctes humerus has internal bone features found in semi-aquatic burrowing mammals (such as the platypus, muskrat and Eurasian otter), rather than land-living burrowing mammals such as the echidna.

From water to land

This discovery suggests that a semi-aquatic lifestyle is ancestral for all living monotremes. It also suggests the amphibious lifestyle of the modern platypus had its origins at least 100 million years ago, during the Age of Dinosaurs.

In this scenario, the modern platypus lineage has retained the ancestral semi-aquatic burrowing lifestyle for more than 100 million years. Echidnas would have reverted to a land-based way of life more recently.

For echidnas, a return to land appears to have resulted in adaptations such as their long bones becoming lighter, as shown in our study.

They possibly also lost several other features more useful for spending time in the water rather than on land, including the loss of a long tail, reduction of webbing between fingers and toes, reduction of the duck-like bill to a narrow beak, and a reduced number of electroreceptors on that beak.

However, precisely when this evolutionary transformation occurred is not yet known. The answer must wait until early echidna fossils are found – so far, nothing definitive has turned up anywhere.

The modern habitats of monotremes are increasingly under threat from environmental degradation, interactions with humans and feral predators, and climate change. This is especially true for platypuses. To ensure the survival of this ancient lineage, we need to better understand how their unique features evolved and adapted.

Sue Hand receives funding from the Australian Research Council

Laura A. B. Wilson receives funding from the Australian Research Council

Robin Beck receives funding from the UK’s National Environmental Research Council, and the Australian Research Council.

Camilo López-Aguirre does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Echidna ancestors lived watery lifestyles like platypuses 100 million years ago – new study – https://theconversation.com/echidna-ancestors-lived-watery-lifestyles-like-platypuses-100-million-years-ago-new-study-254484

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hannah Pitt, Senior Research Fellow – Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University

Do something about it before it gets worse.

This was a response from a 16-year-old boy in one of our recent studies when asked what he would say to the prime minister about gambling in Australia.

This response is not uncommon.

Read more:
Gambling in Australia: how bad is the problem, who gets harmed most and where may we be heading?

Calls for action

Even before they can legally gamble at the age of 18, young people recognise the harms that the gambling industry (and those who profit from gambling, such as sporting codes) can cause to Australians.

And they are frustrated by a lack of government action to protect them from these harms.

They tell us that rather than prioritising the wellbeing of the community, the government is prioritising the profits of a harmful business.

Politicians are also hearing concerns about gambling from the young people they represent in their communities.

Urging parliamentary action on gambling advertising, former Australian rugby captain and Independent ACT Senator David Pocock told parliament:

Talk to parents and young people. They’ll name all the gambling companies. They’ll be able to recite odds. They’ll talk about the odds for the upcoming games of their favourite teams. What I’m hearing from people here in the ACT that I represent is that this is not the direction they want to go in.

Starting young

For more than a decade, our team has been talking to young people and their parents about the normalisation of gambling in Australia. We have carried out multiple studies that show how pervasive marketing tactics are normalising gambling for young Australians.

Young people tell us they see innovative marketing strategies for different gambling products (including betting, lotteries and casinos) everywhere, including during family-friendly television shows, through watching and attending sport and even while walking down the street.

They increasingly see promotions on social media sites such as TikTok and Snapchat.

They can name multiple gambling brands from a young age, and think gambling gives you a reason to watch sport.

When asked why, they say gambling adds to the fun and excitement of the game. Some tell us they would be convinced to gamble if they got a good “deal” from a company.

Newer forms of app-based gambling also make it is easier for young people to gamble anywhere, anytime when they turn 18.

As an example, a young person couldn’t sit in a classroom and drink alcohol when they reach the legal age, but it is not unusual for young people to tell us that classmates use apps to bet on major events while at school.

Some researchers have also documented the extent to which young people gamble before the age of 18.

One study found 31% of 12- to 17-year-olds had ever gambled and 6% had gambled in the past month. They found 8% were at some level of risk of gambling harm.

It’s no wonder parents are worried.

Their concern about the risks of gambling are similar to their concerns about alcohol: 70% are at least somewhat concerned about the risks associated with gambling for their children, and 27.7% are extremely concerned.

They comment that gambling products are “highly accessible”, “attractive” and “in your face”.

When parents try to talk to their children about gambling, they say it is almost impossible to “get the message across” given the constant exposure to ads that their children see in their everyday lives. As one father told us:

It’s advertised to children every day of the week when they watch their favourite sport stars, so they think it’s normal.

It’s time to act

Government decisions about how to respond to the gambling industry will have a major impact on young people’s futures. But young people have rarely (if ever) been given an opportunity by the government to put forward their views.

Research shows when they are given the opportunity to comment on gambling policy (and gambling industry tactics), they carefully consider the issues. They are also able to use their own experiences to suggest strategies that would help protect them and other young people from gambling industry harm.

The United Nations states children have the right to be consulted about issues that matter to them and impact their futures. This includes strengthening engagement with children and young people, recognising their “agency, resilience and their positive contributions as agents of change”.

Young people have been central actors in the climate justice movement, and have been key stakeholders in initiatives to respond to the tactics of the junk food and tobacco industries.

While we talk a lot about the impact of the gambling industry on young people, governments rarely consult them about the policies that are needed to protect them from harm.

Yet their message to the government in our research is clear. They:

• are concerned about the influence of gambling marketing on the normalisation of gambling for young people, and its short and long-term impacts

• believe current restrictions aimed at protecting young people are ineffective

• are critical of the overwhelmingly positive messages about gambling they are exposed to, with very limited information about the risks and harms associated with the industry and its products.

The following comment from a 15-year-old sums it up best:

The wellbeing of the population is more important than the revenue that comes in from these sorts of businesses.

Dr Hannah Pitt has received funding from the Australian Research Council, Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, VicHealth, NSW Office of Responsible Gambling, Department of Social Services, ACT Office of Gambling and Racing Commission, and Deakin University. She is currently a member of the Editorial Board of Health Promotion International.

Grace Arnot has received funding for gambling related research from the ACT Office of Gambling and Racing Commission, VicHealth, and Deakin University. Grace is currently a member of the Editorial Board of the journal Health Promotion International.

Professor Samantha Thomas has received funding for gambling and related research from the Australian Research Council, ACT Office of Gaming and Racing, Department of Social Services, VicHealth, Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, Healthway, NSW Office of Responsible Gambling, Deakin University. She is currently Editor in Chief for Health Promotion International, an Oxford University Press journal. She receives an honorarium for this role.

Dr Simone McCarthy has received funding for gambling and related research from ACT Office of Gaming and Racing Commision, the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, VicHealth, Department of Social Services, and Deakin University. She is currently a member of the Editorial Board of Health Promotion International.

– ref. ‘Do something about it before it gets worse’: young people want government action on gambling reform – https://theconversation.com/do-something-about-it-before-it-gets-worse-young-people-want-government-action-on-gambling-reform-251614

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mary Anne Kenny, Associate Professor, School of Law, Murdoch University

When refugees flee their home country due to war, violence, conflict or persecution, they are often forced to leave behind their families.

For more than 30,000 people who have sought asylum in Australia since arriving more than a decade ago, that separation has stretched into more than a decade. This group of people – known in policy circles as “the legacy caseload” – need a clear pathway to reunite with family members.

Refugees separated from family are plagued by guilt and worry for their family members’ safety. This makes it extremely difficult to focus on education, work or getting settled.

The right to family unity is a basic human right and vital to any humane refugee policy.

However, tensions arise between refugees’ conceptions of family and the restrictive definitions embedded in Australian law.

High costs, complex administrative requirements, and lengthy processing times often delay or prevent families from reuniting.

The legacy caseload: more than a decade in limbo

The so-called “legacy caseload” refers to approximately 30,000 people who arrived by boat between 2012 and 2014, and who were placed on Temporary Protection Visas.

For more than a decade, they were denied a pathway to permanency and barred from sponsoring family members to join them in Australia.

That policy made life so unbearable, more than 6,500 people from this group “chose” to return home despite the risks they face. This raises serious concerns about whether they were genuinely able to make a free choice, or were pushed into returning to danger.

Since the Albanese government’s 2022 commitment to end temporary protection, almost 20,000 people have been eligible to transition to permanent visas through the Resolution of Status process.

This is a crucial step. Without a permanent visa, they could not sponsor family members.

Even with permanency, however, family reunion remains out of reach for many “legacy caseload” refugees. This is due to outdated laws, harsh policies and bureaucratic delays.

Many of these refugees have not seen their spouses or children since before their arrival. Because they arrived by boat, they are barred from proposing family members through the humanitarian visa program and must use the family migration program.

That’s significant because the humanitarian program has a much broader definition of “family”, and grants people access to settlement services after they arrive.

Still unresolved is the fate of some 7,000 people who were refused protection under the flawed fast track system (a now abandoned policy that was supposed to speed up processing but actually introduced delays and unfairness).

These people urgently need a pathway to permanency.

Why family reunion remains so difficult

The main barriers to family reunification for refugees include:

• high visa fees (partner visa application charges, when they include children, can cost more than A$20,000)
• strict legal definitions (children over 23 are not classified as “dependents”; a child who was 12 when their parent fled may now be 24 — legally an adult, but still dependent and at risk)
• barriers to documentation (war and instability can make it difficult or dangerous to obtain documents, such as passports or identity papers)
• limited access to embassies
• technical issues with online applications
• repeated health checks (there is a visa requirement health checks but they are only valid for 12 months, so may need to be repeated if visa processing is delayed)
• unclear rules around exemptions.

These uncertainties further delay the process and add emotional and financial strain.

Calls for reform

Several organisations, including the Refugee Council of Australia, have called for clear, achievable reforms. These include:

• introducing visa application charge concessions for refugees
• allowing people to pay fees in instalments
• adapting visa processing to reflect realities faced by refugee and humanitarian visa applicants, such as challenges obtaining identity documents
• establishing a dedicated unit in the Department of Home Affairs for processing visas from refugee families
• prioritising families where children may “age out”.

They have also called for changes to the legal definitions of “dependent” and “member of the family unit”. This is to reflect the diverse familial structures in many refugee communities.

For many refugees, family extends beyond the Western concept of the nuclear family. It may also encompass, for instance, adult daughters and parents (who often play pivotal care-giving roles).

Another big issue for many refugee families is single young women in Afghanistan being left behind because they have aged out.

Reuniting families

Australia can learn from other countries.

Canada’s refugee sponsorship program actively supports family reunification.

New Zealand offers a more affordable and flexible system. Their definitions of family are broader and visa fees are lower.

Without family reunion, a refugee’s safety remains incomplete.

As one refugee told researchers:

I’m partly safer [in Australia], but inside I’m not safe […] I’m always afraid for the future of my family.

Thousands of refugees in Australia are still waiting. Their families remain in danger. The legal and policy tools to fix this already exist. What’s missing, for now, is the political will.

Reforming Australia’s family reunion system would mean more efficient refugee resettlement and integration, ultimately benefiting broader Australian society.

Mary Anne Kenny is a member of the Migration Institute of Australia and the Law Council of Australia and an affiliate of the UNSW Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law. She was on the Ministerial Council on Asylum Seekers and Detention (an independent advisory body) between 2012 and 2018.

– ref. ‘I’m always afraid for the future of my family’: why it’s too hard for some refugees to reunite with loved ones – https://theconversation.com/im-always-afraid-for-the-future-of-my-family-why-its-too-hard-for-some-refugees-to-reunite-with-loved-ones-254710

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicole Gillespie, Professor of Management; Chair in Trust, Melbourne Business School

Have you ever used ChatGPT to draft a work email? Perhaps to summarise a report, research a topic or analyse data in a spreadsheet? If so, you certainly aren’t alone.

Artificial intelligence (AI) tools are rapidly transforming the world of work. Released today, our global study of more than 32,000 workers from 47 countries shows that 58% of employees intentionally use AI at work – with a third using it weekly or daily.

Most employees who use it say they’ve gained some real productivity and performance benefits from adopting AI tools.

However, a concerning number are using AI in highly risky ways – such as uploading sensitive information into public tools, relying on AI answers without checking them, and hiding their use of it.

There’s an urgent need for policies, training and governance on responsible use of AI, to ensure it enhances – not undermines – how work is done.

Our research

We surveyed 32,352 employees in 47 countries, covering all global geographical regions and occupational groups.

Most employees report performance benefits from AI adoption at work. These include improvements in:

• efficiency (67%)
• information access (61%)
• innovation (59%)
• work quality (58%).

These findings echo prior research demonstrating AI can drive productivity gains for employees and organisations.

We found general-purpose generative AI tools, such as ChatGPT, are by far the most widely used. About 70% of employees rely on free, public tools, rather than AI solutions provided by their employer (42%).

However, almost half the employees we surveyed who use AI say they have done so in ways that could be considered inappropriate (47%) and even more (63%) have seen other employees using AI inappropriately.

Sensitive information

One key concern surrounding AI tools in the workplace is the handling of sensitive company information – such as financial, sales or customer information.

Nearly half (48%) of employees have uploaded sensitive company or customer information into public generative AI tools, and 44% admit to having used AI at work in ways that go against organisational policies.

This aligns with other research showing 27% of content put into AI tools by employees is sensitive.

Check your answer

We found complacent use of AI is also widespread, with 66% of respondents saying they have relied on AI output without evaluating it. It is unsurprising then that a majority (56%) have made mistakes in their work due to AI.

Younger employees (aged 18-34 years) are more likely to engage in inappropriate and complacent use than older employees (aged 35 or older).

This carries serious risks for organisations and employees. Such mistakes have already led to well-documented cases of financial loss, reputational damage and privacy breaches.

About a third (35%) of employees say the use of AI tools in their workplace has increased privacy and compliance risks.

‘Shadow’ AI use

When employees aren’t transparent about how they use AI, the risks become even more challenging to manage.

We found most employees have avoided revealing when they use AI (61%), presented AI-generated content as their own (55%), and used AI tools without knowing if it is allowed (66%).

This invisible or “shadow AI” use doesn’t just exacerbate risks – it also severely hampers an organisation’s ability to detect, manage and mitigate risks.

A lack of training, guidance and governance appears to be fuelling this complacent use. Despite their prevalence, only a third of employees (34%) say their organisation has a policy guiding the use of generative AI tools, with 6% saying their organisation bans it.

Pressure to adopt AI may also fuel complacent use, with half of employees fearing they will be left behind if they do not.

Better literacy and oversight

Collectively, our findings reveal a significant gap in the governance of AI tools and an urgent need for organisations to guide and manage how employees use them in their everyday work. Addressing this will require a proactive and deliberate approach.

Investing in responsible AI training and developing employees’ AI literacy is key. Our modelling shows self-reported AI literacy – including training, knowledge, and efficacy – predicts not only whether employees adopt AI tools but also whether they critically engage with them.

This includes how well they verify the tools’ output, and consider their limitations before making decisions.

We found AI literacy is also associated with greater trust in AI use at work and more performance benefits from its use.

Despite this, less than half of employees (47%) report having received AI training or related education.

Organisations also need to put in place clear policies, guidelines and guardrails, systems of accountability and oversight, and data privacy and security measures.

There are many resources to help organisations develop robust AI governance systems and support responsible AI use.

The right culture

On top of this, it’s crucial to create a psychologically safe work environment, where employees feel comfortable to share how and when they are using AI tools.

The benefits of such a culture go beyond better oversight and risk management. It is also central to developing a culture of shared learning and experimentation that supports responsible diffusion of AI use and innovation.

AI has the potential to improve the way we work. But it takes an AI-literate workforce, robust governance and clear guidance, and a culture that supports safe, transparent and accountable use. Without these elements, AI becomes just another unmanaged liability.

This research was supported by the Chair in Trust research partnership between the University of Melbourne and KPMG Australia and funding from KPMG International. The research was conducted independently by Professor Nicole Gillespie and Dr Steve Lockey and their research team at Melbourne Business School, The University of Melbourne, and published in collaboration with KPMG.

– ref. Major survey finds most people use AI regularly at work – but almost half admit to doing so inappropriately – https://theconversation.com/major-survey-finds-most-people-use-ai-regularly-at-work-but-almost-half-admit-to-doing-so-inappropriately-255405